Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 724
T.S. Doabia, J.
Mathura Prasad Jamuna Prasad
vs
Ghasiram @ Raju And Ors.
Decided on : 19 August, 1996
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act, 1925 in the context of the continuance of an execution application by the legal representatives of a deceased decree-holder.
Headnote:
Section 214(1)(b) - Money Decree - The court held that the continuance of an execution application filed by the decree-holder himself, by his legal representatives after the death of the decree-holder is not hit by Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act, 1925. The court preferred to follow the view expressed by Nagpur High Court in Tejraj Rajmal v. Rampyari, 1938 NLJ 99 = AIR 1938 Nag. 528, which stated that the bar created by Section 214(1)(b) is equally applicable to the execution application instituted by the decree-holder himself and sought to be prosecuted further upon his death by his legal representatives who claim to his estate on succession.
Fact of the Case:
A money decree was passed in favor of Pooran Chand, who has since died. Execution is now sought by his legal heirs.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, set aside the observation made by the lower courts that a succession certificate is not required, and directed the petitioner to deposit the decretal amount with the Execution Court. The amount was to be deposited in a fixed deposit account in a specified bank within two months, and failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the money decree would fall within the definition of 'debt' and if Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act, 1925 would be attracted for the execution sought by the legal heirs of the deceased decree-holder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act, 1925, and the view expressed by the Nagpur High Court in Tejraj Rajmal v. Rampyari, 1938 NLJ 99 = AIR 1938 Nag. 528, which held that the bar created by Section 214(1)(b) is equally applicable to the execution application instituted by the decree-holder himself and sought to be prosecuted further upon his death by his legal representatives who claim to his estate on succession.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the observation made by the lower courts that a succession certificate is not required was set aside. The petitioner was directed to deposit the decretal amount with the Execution Court within two months, and failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the petition.
T.S. Doabia, J.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a money decree was passed in favour of one Pooran Chand. He has since died. Execution is now sought by his legal heirs.
2. The argument raised is that the money decree would also fall within the definition of 'debt' and accordingly Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act, 1925 would be attracted. Reliance is being placed on 1981(2) MPWN 57, Kewalram v. Surjeet Singh. This Court preferred to follow the view expressed by Nagpur High Court in Tejraj Rajmal v. Rampyari, 1938 NLJ 99 = AIR 1938 Nag. 528. This Court observed as under :
"The view, therefore is that the continuance of an execution application filed by the decree-holder himself, by his legal representatives after the death of the decree-holder is Hot hit by Section 214(1)(b). The other view, which is contrary to the view expressed in Mohammed Yusuf's case (supra) and shared by the Patna, Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts, as stated above, is that the bar created by Section 214(1)(b) is equally applicable to the execution application instituted by the decree-holder himself and sought to be prosecuted further upon his death by his legal representatives who claim to his estate on succession. This is the view held by a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Tejraj Rajmal's case (supra). The reasoning of the Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court is that since the abatement does not apply to execution proceedings, the heirs of the deceased decree holder need not take steps for substitution in a pending execution and the proper application would be for leave to carry on or proceed with the pending execution proceedings. Such an application would be "of a person claiming to be so entitled" within the meaning of Section 214(1)(b). "To be so entitled" means entitled to any part of the estate of the deceased. The view, therefore, is that when a person claiming on succession applies for proceedings further with a pending execution application filed by the decree-holder, he claims to be entitled to the estate of the deceased and the application is by a person to be entitled to any part of the deceased's estate and, therefore, is within the mischief of Section 214(1)(b). This view is shared by Rajasthan and Travancore Cochin High Courts. (See : Ganeshmal v. Anandkanwar, AIR 1968 Raj. 273, Nandlal v. Mahavir Kumar, AIR 1974 Raj. 189 and Thomas Chacko v. Koshi Varghese, AIR 1956 Travancore 183.
The view of this court is clear and supports the petitioner.
3. Accordingly this petition is allowed. The observation made by Courts below that succession certificate is not required is set aside. It is however made clear that the petitioner would deposit decretal amount with the Execution Court. The Executing Court would get this amount deposited in a fixed deposit account in Punjab and Sind Bank, Jaynendra Branch, Gwalior.
4. Let the amount be deposited within a period of two months. In case the amount is not deposited, this petition would deemed to have been dismissed. Otherwise heirs of Pooran Chand would be entitled to the amount so deposited after requisite steps are taken by them under Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act.
Disposed of accordingly.
