Joint decree-holders are not required to obtain a succession certificate before executing a decree, as they can execute it for the benefit of survivors and legal representatives under Order 21 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

, J.

1. Tilts revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dated 26.4.1989 declining to execute the award pertaining to the enhanced amount of compensation on the ground that the legal representatives Lal Singh i. e. petitioners should bring a succession certificate after making interpretation of Sec.214 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Order 21 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the code ). At the time of hearing today, an affidavit of Jaspal Kaur widow of Lal Singh has been filed before me stating that she along with Harinder Pal Singh, Sukhwinder Pal Singh and Akbinder Pal Singh sons of Lal Singh and Basant Pal Kaur and Chinder Pal Kaur daughters of Lal Singh are the only legal heirs of Lal Singh deceased.

2. It hag been vehemently argued by Mr. N. L. Dhingra, the Seamed counsel for the petitioners that Lal Singh deceased was one of the joint decree-holders and, therefore, his legal representatives ate under no legal obligation to obtain in the first instance a succession certificate before claiming, the enhanced amount of compensation It has farther been argued by him that Sec.214 of the Indian Succession Act is applicable to a person who is a solitary decree-holder. In support of his arguments, he has cited Ramnibas Aggarwala V/s. Mt. Podumi Kallta, AIR.1967 Assam and Nag.27, Maddula Kasiyya V/s. Jallipalli Pullayya, A. I. R.1974 Andh. P.220, Nandlal V/s. Mahavir Kumar, A. I. R 1974 Raj.189 and M. C. Sreedharan V/s. Pattieri Kumaran, A. I. R.1981 Kerala 51, On the other band Mr. Raina the Assistant Advocate General, has taken the help of the authority reported as K. T. Thimrne Gowda V/s. Shri Thimme Gowda, A. I. R.1986 Karnataka 204, for the proposition that the legal representatives of the deceased cannot execute the decree in the absence of a succession certificate.

3. Before discussing the case law cited at the bar by the counsel for the parties and in order to interpret the provisions of Order 21 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 214 of the Indian Succession Act, it is necessary to have a look at the bare provisions of the statutes which are as under :-

"section 214, of the Indian Succession Act; Proof of representative title a condition precedent to recovery through the Court 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, of (i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the giant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased, or (ii) a certificate granted under section 31 or section 32 of the Administrator-Generals Act, 1913, and having the debt mentioned therein, or (iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having the debt specified therein, or (iv) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No. VIII: of 1927 and, if granted after the first day of May, 1889, having the debt specified therein. " "order 21 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure Application for execution by joint decree-holder,- (1) Where a decree has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one, any one or more of such persons may, unless the decree imposes any condition to the contrary, apply for the execution of the, whole decree for the benefit of them, all or where any of them has died, for the benefit of the survivors and the legal representatives of the deceased. (2) Where the Court sees sufficient cause for allowing the decree to be executed on an application made under this rule, if shall make such order as it deems necessary for protecting the interests of the person