SREERAM RANGAIAH Vs. GAJULA KRISNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has come up before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge Sri Justice J.Chelameswar for an authoritative pronouncement, having regard to the conflict situation arising in view of two decisions reported in L.I.C. of India v. T. Tirupathayya, AIR 1963 AP 353 and Akula Rangappa v. Narayana Swamy, AIR 1988 AP 314, on the question as to whether a succession certificate is absolutely necessary for laying execution by the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder.

(2.) The few facts, as necessary for consideration of this case, are that the suit was filed for recovery of certain amounts from the respondent and the same was decreed. However, subsequent to passing of the decree, the plaintiff died. The petitioners herein, claiming to be the sons of the deceased plaintiff/decree-holder, filed the present execution which was contested, inter alia, on the ground that in the absence of succession certificate in their favour, no such application for execution is maintainable in view of Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 'the Act').

(3.) Having heard the Counsel on either side and on perusal of both the decisions and the cases, which have been referred to across the Bar, it necessitates for us to consider the principles in this regard. However, from the facts as narrated, there is no dispute that the petitioners laid the execution subsequent to the death of their father who obtained the decree. Therefore, with this background, it takes us back to the decision in L.I.C. of India (supra), wherein considering the said provision it was held that :