ORDER
R. Gururajan, J.
1. A decree holder is before me challenging an order dated 18-7-2002 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division). Bagalkot in Execution Petition No. 108 of 2002.
2. An award was passed in favour of one Mallappa Kuri in LAC No. 266 of 1996. Dyamawwa is wife of Mallappa Kuri, She filed an Execution Petition seeking execution of the award and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed in LAC No. 266 of 1996. An application filed by her was considered by the learned Judge. After considering the same, learned Judge has chosen to following order.
'I.A. No. 1, Under Order 22, Rules 2 and 3, C.P.C. is allowed. No order as to cost is passed.
Applicant--LR of the deceased awardee can seek execution of the award/decree passed in LAC. 266/96 only on production of succession certificate.'
Petitioner is aggrieved only with regard to an order of production of succession certificate in this petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends before me that there is no need for production of a succession certificate. He tries to distinguish a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported in ILR 1999 Kant 4411, Mallappa, since deceased by his LRs. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer by contending that in the said case there was contest and in the present case there is no contest.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, I carefully perused the impugned order.
5. Learned trial Judge has allowed the petitioner to come on record and receive compensation. However, he has chosen to direct the petitioner to submit a succession certificate in the case on hand. Learned trial Judge relies on a judgment of this Court in ILR 1999 Kant 4411.
The Division Bench of this Court has referred to more than 28 cases. The Division Bench has passed the said order in the light of reference made by another Judge of this Court in the said judgment. The Division Bench after noticing various judgments finally holds that :
'We are of the considered opinion that the ruling laid down by this Court in these cases is perfectly in consonance with the letter and spirit of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act and it states the correct law. Therefore, following the aforestated earlier three decisions of this Court, the learned Judge in Kariyamma v. A.C. and L.A.O. has, in our view, laid down the correct and consistent position of law whereas the conflicting proposition enunciated by another Single Bench of this Court in T. Ramaiah v. K. S. Roopraj, AIR 1989 NOC (Kant) 128 (supra) is not the correct view in law and the same having been made without taking notice of the aforementioned earlier decisions of this Court, is per incuriam and it cannot be treated as precedent.'
6. In the light of pronouncement of this Court, it cannot be said that the learnedJudge has committed any error in ordering production of succession certificate. Argument of the learned counsel is that once the application to prosecute is allowed, then there is no need to produce succession certificate. With respect to the learned counsel, the said submission is not acceptable to me. Legal representative comes on record is to prosecute the right available to them in law. After entering appearance, in so far as execution is concerned, he has to submit a succession certificate in terms of settled law as held by the Division Bench.
7. In these circumstances, I do not find any errors whatsoever in passing the impugned order. C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.