Section 214 (1) (b) of the Succession Act, 1925 requires the production of a succession certificate in all cases where a person claims to be entitled to execute a decree against a debtor of a deceased person, regardless of whether the execution proceeding had been initiated by the deceased decree-holder or by the legal representatives.

G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN this civil revision an interesting and important question, of law arises for consideration with regard to interpretation of Section 214 (1) (b) of the Succession Act, 1925 particularly in view of the fact that the High Courts in India are evenly divided and there is no decision on the point either of this Court or of the Supreme Court. The question of law which arises for consideration is whether on the death of the original decree-holder in an execution proceeding, the legal heirs can continue the proceeding without being required to produce a succession certificate or production of a succession certificate is condition precedent for continuance of the execution proceeding. The decision on this point is dependent on the interpretation of Section 214 of the Succession Act. The said provision is quoted herein below in extenso :-

"section 214 Proof of representative title a condition precedent to recovery through the Courts of debts from debtors of deceased persons:- (1) No Court shall:- (a) pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof or (b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, by the person so claiming or,- (i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased, or (ii) a certificate granted under Section 31 or Section 32 of the Administrator-General's Act, 1913, and having the debt mentioned therein, or (in) a succession rertificate granted under Part X and Slaving the debt specified therein, or (iv) a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889, of (v) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827, and, if granted after the first day of May, 1889, having the debt specified therein: (2) The word '"debt" in Sub-section (1) includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. "

( 2 ) SO far as the fact of the present ease is concerned, one Siba Charan Sahu was the decree-holder in Money Suit No. 181 of 1976 in the court of Munsif, Jaipur and he levied the Execution Case bearing No. 89/77 to execute the decree passed against the judgment-debtor. On 4-4-1979 while the execution case was pending, Siba Charan Sahu died. On 17-4-1979 Gobinda Sahu, we of the distnat relation of Siba Charan Sahu was substituted in the execution case. The judgment-debtor then filed a petition under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. praying for dismissal of the execution case on the ground that the requirements of Section 214 (1) (b) of the Succession Act has not been complied with and therefore, the execution case is liable to be struck down. The learned Munsif by his order dated 5-2-1981 overruled the objection raised on behalf at the judgment-debtor and hence the present revision has been filed by the judge mentdebtor.

( 3 ) SECTION 214 (1) (b) has come up for consideration by different High Courts, One view is that "upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled" used in Section 214 (1) (b) would mean an original application and therefore if the decree-holder himself had filed an execution petition and dies during the continuance of execution petition, then the legal representatives can continue the same and it is not necessary for them to obtain a succession certificate to be entitled to continue the execution proceeding. The protagonists of this view are the High Courts of Allahabad, Calcutta, Madras, Gujarat, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Patna. The contrary view has been expressed by the High Courts of Nagpur, Travancore-Cochin, Rajasthan and Kerala. Since there is no decision of this Court on the point, it would be profitable to note one decision of each Court on the point, examine the