ALLA NAGIREDDY Vs. G.NARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unfortunate plaintiff, who failed in both the courts below, is the appellant in the second appeal. He filed the suit for recovery of Rs.11,900/- from the defendant on the basis of Ex.A1 promissory note dated 1.7.1979 executed by the defendant in favour of one Narayanamma. Narayanamma is no more. Execution of Ex.A1 pronote by the defendant after receiving the consideration thereunder is admitted. Plea of the defendant is one of discharge of the amount to Narayanamma when she was alive. The trial court disbelieved the plea of discharge. But the trial court, after trial, dismissed the suit on the ground that Ex.A3 succession certificate dated 20.12.1988 in favour of the plaintiff is invalid. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal on the ground that Ex.A3 being certified copy of succession certificate, no decree can be passed on its basis.

(2.) This Court while admitting the second appeal framed the following substantial question of law:

(3.) The plaintiff/appellant claims to be adopted son of Alla Narayanamma, who is the payee under Ex.A1 pronote. Though the plaintiff did not obtain any succession certificate in his favour at the time of filing of the suit, subsequent to filing of the suit he obtained succession certificate of Narayanamma in his favour from the District Court, Kurnool. It is commented by the trial court that the defendant is not a party to the proceedings relating to the succession certificate. The defendant need not be made as party to the proceedings relating to the succession certificate. In fact the plaintiff impleaded no party at all in the proceedings relating to the succession certificate. He can do so as there are no rival claimants for succession certificate for the plaintiff. It is only after making paper publication of the succession certificate proceedings, the District Court, after following due procedure prescribed by law, issued the succession certificate. The aggrieved party if any has to question the same in higher Court. The defendant who is not a party to the succession certificate proceedings and who is not a rival claimant for the estate of the deceased Narayanamma, is not entitled to question the succession certificate. Succession certificate is only an instrument which confers right on the holder thereof to receive the amounts due on the pronote or other security which are mentioned therein and to give valid discharge to the person liable to the deceased creditor; and nothing more. Since the defendant is only a debtor and has no claim over the estate of Narayanamma, he has no jurisdiction either to plead or to question validity of Ex.A3 succession certificate.