K GOPAIAH Vs. D VENKATESWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(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.