AKULA RANGAPPA Vs. NARAYANA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Rangappa obtained a money decree against the respondent and he also filed E.P. No. 50/83 to execute the decree. Pending execution, he died on 13-11-1983 intestate leaving behind him, his son the first petitioner, his widow the 2nd petitioner and three daughters, petitioners Nos. 3 to 5. They filed E.A. No. 46/84 under O.22, R.3. C.P.C. to bring them on record as legal representatives, so as to enable them to proceed with the execution of the decree. The court below dismissed the application holding that they did not obtain succession certificate and under S.214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for short the 'Act' placing reliance on a decision reported in S. Rajyalakshmi v. S. Sitamahalakshmi, AIR 1976 Andh Pra 361. Hence this revision.

(2.) Sri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the order passed by the court below contends that the respondent is entitled to protect himself from resisting the application in the absence of any succession certificate granted by a competent court declaring the persons to be entitled to the debt in execution. Such succession certificate not having been filed the petitioners are not entitled to come on record. He placed strong reliance on the decision reported in Ganeshmal v. Anand Kanwar, AIR 1968 Raj 273. He seeks to distinguish the judgement of the Division Bench case reported in A. Mabukhan v. Rajamma, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 69, contending that this court take into account the language of S.214(1)(a) of the Act and the words "so entitled to" and, therefore, all the other courts have fallen in line with the Rajasthan case. Accordingly the ratio of the Division Bench Judgement of the Rajasthan High Court is to be preferred. I am unable to agree. Section 214(1)(a) of the Act is not relevant for the purpose of this case since the suit has already been decreed. The relevant clause is Sub-Sec. (1) (b) of S.214 of the Act which postulates thus :

(3.) Therefore, there is no controversy, or conflict with regard to the rule laid down by this court. No doubt the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent appears to have taken a different view following the line of decisions which this Court has dissented in Mabukhan's case, (AIR 1963 Andh Pra 69) (supra) Mabukhan's decision was not cited before the bench of Rajasthan High Court. Therein the learned Judges appears to have laid stress on the ground 'entitled to claim' and the learned Judges have put that unless the entitlement is determined in the proceedings under S.214 of the Succession Act the debtor would be needlessly put to successive harassment by persons claiming title to execute the debt, the subject matter of the decree in execution. In my view the line of approach may not be necessary for the following reasons. Under O.22, R.3 or 4, C.P.C. the legal representatives or representatives is/are entitled to represent the estate of the deceased. What is sought to be executed is the decree obtained by the deceased decree-holder. However, if one or two of them are claiming title to the decree, it is open to them to come on record and contest the execution proceedings already initiated by the deceased decree-holder. On executing the decree the liability of the Judgement-debtor is wiped out and he is discharged of the liability due under the decree. If any person claiming any amount out of the proceeds of the decree it is open to them to agitate their rights elsewhere. But as against the Judgement-debtor the debt is wiped out and he is no longer answerable to the debt to any other person claiming to be the legal representative. The Division Bench in Mabukhan's case (supra) has rightly considered that when execution was already initiated by the decree-holder and he dies, pending realisation of the debt and his legal representative or legal representatives can come on record, they would pursue the execution proceedings from that stage. Considered from this perspective I express my inability to subscribe to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court and other High Courts. The need to obtain succession certificate arises only when there is rival claims among the legal representatives and for the first time, after the demise of the decree-holder, an independent application for execution was laid. Moreover I am bound by the ratio of the Division Bench Judges and I do not find any ground to doubt the correctness of the Division Bench Judgement. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the L.R. petition is ordered, but in the circumstances without costs. Revision allowed.