Khader Bee and ors. Vs. Mohammad Vazir and ors.

Khader Bee and ors. vs Mohammad Vazir and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Feb 27, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/446887

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/446887
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: I. Venkatanarayana, J.
Decided On: Feb 27, 2001
Case Number: C.R.P. No. 318 of 2001
Subject: Family;Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation...

Key legal issue: Family;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 214 and 214(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khader Bee and ors.

Advocate P.V. Narayana Rao, Adv.

Respondent

Mohammad Vazir and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 214 and 214(2)
Reported In: 2001(2)ALT513

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........civil revision petition is whether the succession certificate as contemplated under section 214 of the indian succession act, 1925 is required for the purpose of executing a decree obtained in the suit for partition of immovable properties.2. the factual matrix in filing the present revision petition is set out hereunder: the petitioners are the plaintiffs. they have filed o.s.no. 243 of 1981 on the file of the learned principal junior civil judge, karimnagar and obtained a decree. pursuant to the decree, the petitioners have filed execution proceedings. meanwhile one of the decreeholders died. the executing court took the stand that in the event of the death of a decreeholder; succession certificate is necessary as per section 214 of the indian succession act.3. it is to be noticed that in the present case the decreeholders have filed execution proceedings pursuant to the decree obtained in the suit for partition and as per section 214 of the indian succession act, succession certificate is required for the purpose of recovery of any debt. the word 'debt' has been defined under subsection (2) of section 214 of the indian succession act, which clearly specifies that the word debt includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purpose. the question raised in this revision petition has been considered by this court in rama seshagiri rao v. n. kamalakumari, : air 1982 ap107 . this court while interpreting section 214 of the indian succession act has held as under:'where execution petition was filed by the legal representative of the deceased decreeholder for execution of the decree for maintenance with charge the legal representative would not be required to obtain a succession certificate before executing the decree for maintenance and for execution of a decree for costs.xxx xxx xxxa suit to recover money due on a simple mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property is a suit for recovery of debt, but it is a suit.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

I. Venkatanarayana, J.

1. The short question that falls for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is whether the Succession Certificate as contemplated under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is required for the purpose of executing a decree obtained in the suit for partition of immovable properties.

2. The factual matrix in filing the present revision petition is set out hereunder: The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They have filed O.S.No. 243 of 1981 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and obtained a decree. Pursuant to the decree, the petitioners have filed Execution Proceedings. Meanwhile one of the decreeholders died. The Executing Court took the stand that in the event of the death of a decreeholder; Succession Certificate is necessary as per Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act.

3. It is to be noticed that in the present case the decreeholders have filed Execution Proceedings pursuant to the decree obtained in the suit for partition and as per Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, Succession Certificate is required for the purpose of recovery of any debt. The word 'debt' has been defined under subsection (2) of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, which clearly specifies that the word debt includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purpose. The question raised in this revision petition has been considered by this Court in Rama Seshagiri Rao v. N. Kamalakumari, : AIR 1982 AP107 . This Court while interpreting Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act has held as under:

'Where execution petition was filed by the legal representative of the deceased decreeholder for execution of the decree for maintenance with charge the legal representative would not be required to obtain a Succession Certificate before executing the decree for maintenance and for execution of a decree for costs.

XXX XXX XXX

A suit to recover money due on a simple mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property is a suit for recovery of debt, but it is a suit to enforce a charge on immovable property and no succession certificate need be obtained by the heirs of the mortgagee to recover the money, therefore, an application for execution of a mortgage decree for realisation of the amounts by sale of the mortgaged property is not an application to obtain an order for payment of bebt.'

4. In another case in S. Rajayalakshmi v. Smt. S. Sitamahalakshmi, : AIR 1976 AP361 this Court considered the applicability of Section 214 of the Act. This Court held that the Succession Certificate is necessary, if a debt is sought to be recovered, for the purpose of other items of the decree, Succession Certificate is not necessary. In the present case, execution proceedings have been filed in pursuance of the decree obtained in the suit for partition of immovable properties. Hence, succession certificate is not required as contemplated under Section 214; since it is not a debt within the meaning of subsection (2) of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act.

5. In view of the above legal position, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order under revision.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the E.P. has not been registered and no notices were served. The lower Court is directed to register the E.P. and decide the matter on merits.

7. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2001 Same Parties Khader Bee and ors. vs Mohammad Vazir and ors. Same Subject Family;Civil Same Judge I. Venkatanarayana, J. Acts & Sections Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 214 and 214(2)

Family;Civil