IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery Suit--Succession certificate is required at time of passing of decree and not time of filing of suit--Suit for recovery rightly decreed.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:-The defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court whereby suit of the plaintiffs for recovery has been decreed.

2. In this appeal, the defendant-appellant has raised two questions of law:

(i)Whether the suit can be filed by the legal representatives in respect of the recovery of a debt without obtaining succession certificate in view of the provisions of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?

(ii)Whether pronote Ex.P1 is a paper transaction in the absence of proof of the capacity of the loaner which could prove the payment of consideration?

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that defendant Kaka Singh took a cash loan of Rs.3 lacs from Pawan Kumar on 6.12.1995 after executing a pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) on interest @ 1.50% per month. Pawan Kumar (Loaner) died on 16.12.1995 and his legal representatives filed the present suit on 30.11.1998 for recovery of Rs.4,60,000/- on account of principal amount of Rs.3 lacs and interest of Rs.1,60,000/-. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendant-appellant. He denied that he had taken the cash loan of Rs.3 lacs from Pawan Kumar by executing a pronote and receipt in the presence of the marginal witnesses. It was alleged that pronote is without consideration. It was further alleged that pronote and receipt are the result of fraud and misrepresentation because he used to sell his agricultural produce at the shop of Parshotam Dass in Grain Market Nabha for about 12/13 years but he never took loan from Pawan Kumar as he has no dealing with him. It was also alleged that when the defendant was selling his agriculture produce at the shop of Parshotam Dass he used to obtain the thumb impression of defendant on blank papers on the pretext of paying the price of the crop. The pronote and receipt were denied on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.

4. The plaintiff filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :

1) Whether defendant took a cash loan of Rs.3 lacs from Pawan Kumar at the interest rate of Rs.1.50% per month on 6.12.95 and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour? OPP.

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery as prayed for? OPP.

3) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPP.

4) Whether the plaintiff has locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPP.

5) Whether the pronote and receipt are result of fraud and misrepresentation and are without consideration? OPD.

6)Whether there are material alterations in the pronote and receipt? If so, its effect? OPD.

7)Whether the suit is barred under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act? OPD.

7-A: Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP.

8)Relief.

6. The plaintiff examined PW1 Jaspal Rai, attesting witness of the pronote and receipt, PW2 Ram Nath, Scribe and attesting witnesses of the pronote and receipt and PW3 Krishan Devi. On the other hand, defendant himself appeared as DW1.

7. During the trial, the plaintiffs/legal representatives of Pawan Kumar filed an application on 6.6.2000 for obtaining succession certificate which was granted and was tendered in evidence as Ex.P3 before the trial Court.

8. The learned trial Court decided issues No.1, 2 to 4 against the plaintiff, issues No.5 and 6 were not pressed by the defendants, therefore, these issues were decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.7 was decided in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court holding that legal representatives of plaintiff has already obtained succession certificate No.17 dated 6.6.2000 from the competent Court of law. Issue No.7-A was also decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff but in nut shell, the suit was dismissed.

9. The first Appellate Court reversed the finding of t