RESILIKUTTY CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these Civil Revision Petitions the same question arises and the petitioner is also the same and hence they are disposed of together.

(2.) These Civil Revision Petitions arise from the orders passed in execution in L.A.R. Nos. 115 and 116 of 1982. C.R.P. No. 210/98 arises from the orders passed in E.A. No. 318/97 in E.P. No. 209/1988 in L.A.R. No. 116/82 while C.R.P. No. 211/98 arises from the orders in E.A. No. 309/97 in E.P. No. 208/1988 in L.A.R. No. 115/82. The petitioners predecessors-in-interest was one V. T. Chacko. His properties were acquired and some compensation was given. On reference, the Sub-Court registered L.A.R. No. 116/82 and L.A.R. No. 115/82. The Sub-Court enhanced the compensation. An award was passed for the enhanced amount in both these cases. Subsequently Chacko filed execution applications in both the L.A. Rs. Pending execution, Chacko died on 25-8-1997. The petitioners are his legal representatives. They filed applications to get themselves impleaded in the execution. But the applications were dismissed by the Court below on the ground that succession certificate was not produced. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that no objection was filed by the State with regard to the fact that the petitioners are the legal representatives of Chacko.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether a succession certificate is necessary in such execution petition. Section 214(1)(a) and (b) of the Indian Succession Act states as follows :"