RAMESHWAR LAL GAUR AND ORS Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Plaintiff's application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur setting aside a decree for rent passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur and remanding the case with a direction that the Plaintiffs should be given time to obtain letters of administration. The suit for the recovery of rent was filed by one Smt. Anandi Devi. The Plaintiff Applicant Rameshwar Lal Gaur is her adopted son and the other Applicants are the minor sons of Rameshwar Lal Gaur. During the pendency of the suit Smt. Anandi Devi died and the present Applicants applied for being substituted as her legal representatives on the basis of a Will which made them the legatees of Anandi Devi as regards the house for which the rent was claimed in the suit. The Applicants produced a copy of the Will by which Smt. Anandi Devi left one house to Rameshwar Lal Gaur's wife and the house in dispute to him and his sons. The application was not opposed and Rameshwar Lal and his sons were duly substituted. The Defendant Respondent filed an objection that the Applicants were not the legatees of Smt. Anandi Devi and that in any case a decree could not be passed in their favour for the recovery of a debt due to the deceased without the production of letters of administration. They relied on Section 214 of the Succession Act. It is not necessary for me to consider the other pleas which were rejected by both the courts below.

(2.) The trial court held that it was not necessary for the Applicants to produce any Letters of Administration and decreed the suit. In revision the Additional District Judge disagreed and held that Section 214 required the production of a certificate before any decree could be passed in favour of the Applicants. He set aside the decree but remanded the case to the trial court with a direction that the Applicants should be given an opportunity to produce letters of administration before a decree is passed in their favour.

(3.) Mr. N.A. Kazmi for the Applicants argued that the view of the Additional District Judge is erroneous as no letters of administration were required in this case. He argued that Section 214 does not apply to this case at all as this is a suit for recovery of rent and rent is not a debt within the meaning of Section 214. He relied on a decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Bihari Lal v. Wasundara Bai, 1956 AIR(MB) 35 in which it was held that the word "debt" in Section 214 does not include arrears of rent or mesne profits. But the judgment itself indicates that this view is based on a misreading of the text. Sub-section (2) of Section 214 provides "The word 'debt' in Sub-section (1) includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes." The learned Judge in Bihari Lal v. Wasundara Bai (supra) after quoting this sub section remarked "It is clear therefore that the word 'debt' as used in Section 214 does not include arrears of rent or mesne profits". The error in this interpretation--If I may say so with respect--is manifest on the face of it, for it overlooks the words "payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes which qualify all the three rent, revenue and profits.