Legal Representatives recognized in suit do not require a succession certificate for decree execution.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 5-4-2004 passed in O.S. No. 581 of 2003 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 581 of 2002. Initially, the suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff viz., G. Buddanna against the respondent-defendant for recovery of money basing on a promissory note dated 4-4-2000. During pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and his Legal Representatives came on record, as plaintiffs 2 to 5, as per the orders in I.A. No. 2305 of 2002, dated 4-4-2003. The defendant-respondent filed his written statement. The trial Court settled the following issues for trial.
1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2) Whether the defendant repaid the amount at Rs. 1,000/- per month?
3) Whether the defendant paid Rs. 12,200/- in April, 2002 towards full settlement?
4) To what relief?

3. On behalf of the plaintiff, 5th plaintiff was examined as PWs1 and 3 documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the defendant, no witness was examined, but 18 documents were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.18. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material on record and on hearing the counsel for both parties, disposed of the suit declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain decree only on production of succession certificate as required under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act . Aggrieved by the direction given by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, the plaintiffs filed this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The respondent-defendant, despite receiving the notice did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel.

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased first plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent-defendant for recovery of money basing on a promissory note executed by the respondent-defendant for Rs. 20,000/-. Pending trial, the deceased first plaintiff died and his Legal Representatives, who are no other than his wife and children came on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5 as per the orders in I.A. No. 2305 of 2002, dated 4-4-2003. In such a case whether the Legal Representatives of the deceased first plaintiff are required to produce Succession Certificate to claim the suit amount. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment of our High Court in S. Satish Traders v. Anisetti Anjaneyulu , 2000 (4) Andh LT 5, wherein it has been held that :
"Coming to the merits of the case, it is not in dispute that one Mr. Kolla Venkatarayudu, son of second petitioner, husband of third petitioner and father of fourth to seventh petitioners, filed a small cause suit for recovery of the monies on the basis of the Kaatha account. During the pendency of the suit Kolla Venkatarayudu died on 24-2-1998 and all the petitioners got themselves impleaded as Legal Representatives of him. Thereafter, the Court below has taken up the trial and decreed the suit. But, unfortunately, at the end of the judgment, it observed that the petitioners have to obtain succession certificate from the competent authority to get the decree executed. When the suit was tried in the presence of the Legal Representatives of late Sri Kolla Venkatarayudu and in the presence of the defendant, who owes monies to Kolla Venkatarayudu and no other person has set up any adverse interests to that of the petitioners herein for the suit claim, the Court has no option except to treat them as Legal Representatives of said Venkatarayudu. When the Court recognizes them as Legal Representatives of Late Sri Kolla Venkatarayudu, the question of obtaining any succession certificate, as directed by it, does not arise