KOTHAMASTI LAKSHMAIAH Vs. KOTHAMASU SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/J. Dr. relying upon a Division Bench decision of our High Court in K. Appa Rao vs. J. Venkanna is that without filing a Succession certificate, it is not open to the legal representative to be impleaded as second decree holder in the execution petition basing upon a will dt.7-5-83.

(2.) The Division Bench held that the language employed in Section 214(i)(b) (of Indian Succession Act) is plain and clear enough to indicate that no Court shall proceed to execute a decree upon an application by a person claiming to be entitled thereto on succession and that it is not open to the petitioner to apply for execution of the decree obtained by his father without obtaining and producing a succession certificate as he claimed by succession and not by survivorship. In that case the decree holder died some time after 15-2-62 and thereafter his son claiming to have become entitled to all the properties of the decree holder pursuant to a will executed by him filed E.P. No.129/1963 for execution of decree by attachment and sale of immovable property is belonging to the Judgment debtor. The Division Bench held that the petitioner was not entitled to apply for execution of decree obtained by his father without producing a succession certificate.

(3.) But another Division Bench of our High Court held in Mabukhan vs. Rajamma.