Judgment:
ORDER
1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of orders passed by the Executing Court, where in the Executing Court directed the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holders to produce Succession Certificate for enforcing the decretal claim and for purposes of collecting the decretal amounts. Details as to Civil Revision Petitions and execution proceedings are mentioned herein in tabular statement:--
Tabular Statement
Tabular Statement
Name of parties in C. R. Ps.
Ex. P.
Date ofAward
Count.
Institution of Ex. Proceedings
2271/92 Kariyamma and 5 others
190/91
10-8-78
C.J. Chitra-durga
By L.Rs. of deceased Muddappa
2272/92 Krishnappa and another
74/90
30-5-84
'
By L. Rs. of deceased Badappa
2274/92 Chikkammaand others
186/91
10-8-78
'
By L. Rs. of deceased Kariyappa
2273/92 Eramma and others.
244/90
'
L. Rs. were brought on recordinEx. 235/89 after the death of decree holder Veeranna.
2. Two important points have arisen for consideration. Point No. 1) Whether it is mandatory for the legal representative/legal representatives of deceased decree-holder to produce succession certificate as envisaged under Section 214 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, in cases where they initiate execution proceedings in the first instance as claiming himself or herself or themselves as legal representatives on succession to the estate of the deceased decree-holder.
Point No. 2:-- Whether in cases where the legal representatives come on record during the pendency of the execution proceedings initiated by the deceased decree-holder, then in such events is it obligatory to produce succession certificate to continue the execution proceedings.
3. Order passed in Execution proceeding which is the subject-matter of the Civil Revision Petition No. 2273 of 1992 arises out of execution proceeding wherein the legal representatives who had already been brought on record in an execution petition filed by the deceased decree-holder having initiated execution proceeding. Judgment debtors have raised common following objection to the executability of the decrees in all the above execution proceedings.
1) Compensation awarded by the reference Court in Land Acquisition cases partakes the character of a debt and as such provisions of Section 214 of the Succession Act are applicable and the legal representative of deceased decree-holders cannot execute the decree without obtaining and producing succession certificate in respect of the award amount sought to be executed. In Kesoram Industries v. Wealth-tax Commissioner (Central) reported in : [1966]59ITR767(SC) , the Supreme Court has observed while dealing with the scope of definition of debt in Section 2(m) of Wealth-tax Act:--
'There is no conflict on the definition of the word 'debt'. All the decisions agree that the meaning of expression 'debt' may take colour from the provisions of the concerned 'Act'. It may have different shades of meaning. But the following definition is unanimously accepted. 'a debt is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in future by reason of a present obligation debitum in praesenti solvendum in future.' The expression 'debt' in Section 214(2) is of wide amplitude to take in compensation amount payable under the Land Acquisition Act. Such of those liabilities which do not consitute debts have been excluded from the definition of the word debt in sub-section (2). All liabilities other than those excluded in sub-section (2) will be debts within the meaning of the word 'debt'. The necessity for obtaining a Succession Certificate cannot be waived by the parties. The obligation is not merely one in favour of debtor. It benefits also those interested in the deceased's estate by requiring that moneys forming the part of the estate shall only be paid to a person who has been considered suitable for the grant of succession certificate. In P.L. Basappa v. Siddamma reported in (1965) 2 Mys LJ 167 : (AIR 1966 Mysore 198), this Court has discussed the scope of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act and as well as Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Relevant passages in the Judgment are (at p. 199 of AIR):--
'It is not denied that the respondent had no right in the amount decreed during the life time of her husband. It is also not denied that she did not get the property in question by survivorship. She acquired a right for portion of decree in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 30 of 1956). This section regulates succession to the estate of a male Hindu dying intestate. Because of the provisions contained therein the respondent became a legal representative to the deceased. That section says that the property of male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions contained in that chapter. In other words that section regulates the succession to the estate of a male Hindu dying intestate. It does nothing more.' Section 214 reads:--
(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 debto,
except on the production, by the person so claiming, of;--
(i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him to 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
(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 1827, and, if granted after the first day of May, 1989, having the debt specified therein.
(2) The word 'debt' in sub-section (I) includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes.
'There is hardly any doubt that the respondent's claim for a share in the decree amount is on the basis that she has also succeeded to the estate of the deceased. Therefore she cannot proceed with the execution without the production of a succession certificate. I see no conflict between S. 214 of the Indian Succession Act and S. 88 of the Hindu Succession Act. The former lays down that no execution petition shall be proceeded without the production of a succession certificate when a person claims a right in a decree on the ground of succession, whereas the latter regulates the succession to the estate of a deceased male Hindu dying intestate. The Courts below, in my opinion, erred in thinking that the requirements of S. 214 of the Indian Succession Act have been in any manner modified by S. 8 of the Hindu Sue-cession Act.
In Lokkamma v. Nanjappa Gowda reported in ILK 1973 Kant 745, this Court while dealing with the scope of Section 214(1)(a) and (b) of Succession Act observed at paragraphs 8, 9 and 10:--
'But the answer to the same is found discussed at some length in the other three cases, and that is in an execution petition when an heir purports to come on record, the position really is not one of substitution of an heir as a legal representative in the same way as it happens in suits, but that when an heir comes on record and continues the application, it is in effect an application by the said heir himself or herself. I agree with the said view because there is no such thing as either abatement in execution proceedings or any necessity to avoid that abatement by impleading legal representatives. It will be seen that there are specified provisions in the Code for directly proceeding against the legal representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor (Section 50) or enabling the heirs of a decree-holder to execute the decree in their own right (Rule 16 of Order XXI). When an heir therefore makes an application, he is really in the ordinary dictionary sense making a request to be permitted to treat the execution application as his or her own application and to proceed with it.' There is another approach which can be suggested in support of the same. A succession certificate according to Part X of the Indian Succession Act is an authorisation by the court empowering the grantee to collect the debits specified therein, belonging to the estate of the deceased person, and to grant full discharge to the debtors who pay debts to him. In the case of a suit, a decree of Court is a direction to the defendant to pay the debt to the plaintiff therein. That itself means an enforceable authorisation. It is therefore provided in clause (a) that before a decree is passed an heir claiming to be entitled to collect the (effects of deceased) should produce a certificate. In the case of an execution petition, decree has already been passed and the only way in which the necessity of securing the Court's authority to collect debts and grant discharge can be enforced is by insisting that succession certificate should be produced before an heir proceeds with the execution application.
The view therefore gives effect both to the substantive purpose of Part X of the Indian Succession Act and also the clear language of Section 214(1) of the Indian Succession Act.'
4. It is to be noted that an execution application presented by the decree-holder does not come to an end with his death. An execution application does not abate when the decree-holder dies. The legal representative is entitled to apply for permission to bring himself on record in the place of deceased decree-holder in that execution case and to continue the proceedings not only under O. 21, R. 16 of C.P.C. but also under Section 146 of C.P.C.
5. Mr. Justice Anantha Krishna Ayyar in Venkatalakshmma v. Seshagiri Rao reported in 1931 Mad WN 48 : (AIR 1931 Madras 303) has explained the purpose behind the permissibility of the legal representative of the deceased decree-holder to come on record and to continue the execution proceeding.
'If the only remedy open to the legal representative of a deceased decree-holder in such a case is to file fresh execution petition, then fresh pleas of limitation might be open to the judgment-debtor the intervening period affording him basis for such contention. Attachments which were effected pending the prior execution petition would prima facie no longer be available when fresh execution petition is filed. The advantages which a decree-holder has as a result of his having filed an execution petition, such as the right to share in the proceeds of auction sales held by the same Court after filing of such execution petition might not be necessarily available to him on such fresh execution petition. Other disadvantages to the decree-holders representative also could be readily imagined.'
6. Sri Padubidri Ragavendra Rao with his characteristic style of fairness submitted that it is not possible to comprehend the reasonings adopted by the Courts in making a distinction that to insist the legal representatives to obtain a succession certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased decree-holder in case they initiate execution proceedings at the first instance on principle of succession and not to insist on obtaining succession certificate in cases where they are permitted to come on record as legal representatives of deceased decree-holder during the pendency of the execution proceedings initiated by the deceased decree-holder. However, he relies on the ratio decidendi of the cases reported in : AIR1972Pat37 and : (AIR 1989 NOC 128), where the courts have he(1989) 1 Kant LJ 34 ld that in cases where the legal representatives come on record during the pendency of the execution proceedings on the death of the decree-holder in an execution petition initiated by him, that Courts should not insist on the legal representatives to obtain succession certificate. In Thimmegowda v. Thimmegowda reported in : AIR1986Kant204 , this Court has observed at paragraphs 3 and 4 thus:--
'Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, reads as-
'(1) No Court shall-
(a)
(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) and (ii)
(iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having the debt specified therein, or.....'
Thus, it becomes clear that Section 214(b) of the Indian Succession Act puts a restriction on the powers of the Court to proceed with the execution unless a succession certificate is produced by the persons claiming to be the legal representatives of the original decree-holders. The wordings in Section 214(b) of the Indian Succession Act are clear enough to show that the executing Court should not proceed with the execution unless the persons claiming to be legal representatives of the original decree-holders produce the succession certificate.
In the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by P.L. Paruck, Fifth Edition by Sri J. L. Joshi 1966, on page 457, it is held as -
'This sub-section prohibits the Courts from proceeding to execute the decree unless a succession certificate is produced. A decree obtained by a person trading as a firm cannot be executed by his son without the production of a certificate. Application for execution may be made without the certificate but no process will be issued until the certificate is produced. If the decree is in favour of two persons and one of them dies the survivor can proceed to execute it without certificate, unless the debt due was part of the separate property of the deceased. This sub-section only bars the institution of execution proceedings by a person claiming on succession and does not bar the continuance of the proceedings if the execution proceedings have already been started by the deceased. His legal representatives may be substituted in his place without any succession certificate.'
Thus, it becomes clear that if an execution is sued out by the persons claiming to be the legal representatives of the original decree-holder, what the executing Court should do is that it should not issue process or proceed further with the execution until the succession certificate is produced.'
7. This is to state that in regard to the ratio decidendi of the cases relied upon by Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao in support of his contention that the executing Court should not insist on the legal representatives to obtain succession certificate before proceeding with the execution of the decree obtained by the deceased decree-holder, I am in respectful disagreement in respect of ratio decidendi of the cases relied by him. This Court in three of its decisions namely - in
1) (1965) 2 Mys LJ 167 : (AIR 1966 Mysore 198)
2) ILR 1973 Kant 745
3) : AIR1986Kant204
has held that it is mandatory on the part of the legal representatives of deceased decree-holder to obtain succession certificate before realising the decretal amount through execution proceedings. Placing reliance on the observations of Chief Justice Narayanpai in ILR 1973 Kant 745 at para 13 of its judgment, it is made clear that the executing Court should not close the execution proceedings but it has to keep the same pending to enable the legal representatives to secure the succession certificate and thereon to proceed with further proceedings. I am of the view that to give effect both to the substantive purpose of Part X of the Indian Succession Act and also the clear language of Section 214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act that it is mandatory that the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder must obtain succession certificate before realising the decretal amount due to deceased decree-holder in an execution proceeding irrespective of the fact whether the legal representatives initiate execution proceedings at first instance or they come on record during the pendency of execution proceedings initiated by the decree-holder by virtue of the provisions of Order 21 Rules 10 and 11, Order 22 Rule 12 and Section 47 read with Section 146 of C.P.C.
8. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
9. Revision Dismissed.