KARIYAMMA Vs. ASSTT COMMR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of orders passed by the Executing Court, wherein 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 <FRM> Name of parties in C.R.Ps. Ex.P. Date of Award Court. Institution of Ex.Proceedings 2271/92 Kariyamma and 5 others 190/91 10-8-78 C.J.Chitradurga By L.Rs.of deceased Muddappa 2272/92 Krishnappa and another 74/90 30-5-84 " By L.Rd.of deceased Badappa 2274/92 Chikkamma and others 186/91 10-8-78 " By L.Rs.of deceased Kariyappa 2273/92 Eramma and others. 244/90 " L.Rs.were brought on record in Ex.235/89 after the death of decree-holder Veeranna. </FRM>

(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.

(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. Judgement debtors have raised common following objection to the excitability 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 AIR 1966 SC 1370, 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.