Skip to content


K. Gopaiah Vs. D. Venkateswar Rao - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Family

Court

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Revision Petition No. 1677 of 1990

Judge

Reported in

I(1993)DMC380

Acts

Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 372; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 8

Appellant

K. Gopaiah

Respondent

D. Venkateswar Rao

Disposition

Petition allowed

Excerpt:


.....products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the act. thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in section 2(xv) of the act. whatever products are declared as such by the government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the act. consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of the act on them it is competent for the government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [per p.s. narayana, j,(dissenting)]if livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the..........recovered, did not devolve on the legal representatives of the late decree-holder by survivorship, but it devolves by succession as contained under section 8 of the hindu succession act and as such, as held by the two division benches of this court in l.i.c. of india v. tirupathayya, 1963(1) an. w.r. 124 and k. apparao v. j. venkanna, 1969(2) an. w.r. 479 succession certificate has got to be obtained to execute the decree. he further contends that it is not a case where execution proceedings were initiated and the decree-holder died during the pendency of execution petition. he also contends that the son is not the only legal representative and as the daughters are also the legal representatives and as the succession is governed by section 8 of the hindu succession act, it is incumbent upon the legal heirs of the decree-holder to obtain a succession certificate.3. sri v.s.r. anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that admittedly, dupaguntal venkateswar rao is the son of the late decree-holder dupaguntia raghavaiah and as the daughters of the late decree-holder had no objection for filing the execution petition by the son of the late.....

Judgment:


B. Subhashan Reddy, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.3.1990 passed in E.P. N. 314/89 in O.S. No. 153/76 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif, Vijayawada, overruling the objection of the judgment-debtor, who is the petitioner herein, that for execution of the money-decree passed in favour of the late father of the respondent herein, production of succession certificate is a must and the same has to be obtained as contained under Section 37 of the Indian Succession Act.

2. Sri K. Ranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner-judgment-debtor contends that the Court below has erred in not acceding to the contention that succession certificate is a must inasmuch as the amount, which is sought to be recovered, did not devolve on the legal representatives of the late decree-holder by survivorship, but it devolves by succession as contained under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and as such, as held by the two Division Benches of this Court in L.I.C. of India v. Tirupathayya, 1963(1) An. W.R. 124 and K. Apparao v. J. Venkanna, 1969(2) An. W.R. 479 succession certificate has got to be obtained to execute the decree. He further contends that it is not a case where execution proceedings were initiated and the decree-holder died during the pendency of execution petition. He also contends that the son is not the only legal representative and as the daughters are also the legal representatives and as the succession is governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, it is incumbent upon the legal heirs of the decree-holder to obtain a succession certificate.

3. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that admittedly, Dupaguntal Venkateswar Rao is the son of the late decree-holder Dupaguntia Raghavaiah and as the daughters of the late decree-holder had no objection for filing the execution petition by the son of the late decree-holder, no succession certificate is called for.

4 Here is a case where the decree was passed on 12.7.1976 and the decree-holder died on 14.4.1980 intestate. The execution petition was filed on 12.7.1988 by his son, who is not the only legal representative, but there are other legal representatives i.e., five daughters left behind by the decree-holder. Having regard to the judgments of the two Division Benches referred to above, I find myself bound by the same and accordingly hold that the legal representatives of the late decree-holder viz. Dupaguntla Raghavaiab have to obtain succession certificate under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act.

5. I accordingly allow this revision petition, but no order as to costs.

6. I, however, grant four months' time to the respondent-decree-holder to obtain the necessary succession certificate under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //