KOTIPALLI APPARAO Vs. JAKKAM VENKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 29th April, 1963 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Narasapur, in E.P. No. 129 of 1963 in S.C. No. 53 of 1951 on his file.

(2.) The following are the facts giving rise to this petition. Late Kotipalli Ramamurthy, the father of the petitioner, obtained a money decree in S.C. No. 52 of 1951 against the respondents on 31st January, 1951. He filed a few infructuous execution petitions during his lifetime and the last of those petitions was E. P. 86 of 1960 which was dismissed on 13th August, 1960 as not pressed. The decree-holder Ramamurthy, died some time after 15th February, 1962 whereafter his son, the petitioner, claiming to have become entitled to all the properties of Ramamurthy including the decree in S.C. No. 53 of 1951 pursuant to a will executed by himon 15th February, 1962, filed E.P. No. 129 of 1963 for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of the immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor after bringing him on record as a decree-holder. This application was resisted by the judgment-debtor who contended inter alia that the petition is not maintainable without the production of a succession certificate. The learnd Subordinate Judge repelled all the other contentions urged by the judgment-debtors except the one relating to the maintainability of the execution petition without production of succession certificate. He did not however dismiss the execution petition straightway but closed it with a direction that the petitioner could apply for its revival and continuance after producing a succession certificate within four months from 29th November, 1963. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

(3.) Out learned brother, Chandrasekhara Sastry, J., before whom this revision petition came up for hearing in the first instance, referred it to a Bench observing that the decision is Mahbubkhan V. Rajamma, relied upon by the petitioner's Advocate is not exactly in point as in that case the execution petition filed by the original decree-holder was pending and was only sought to be continued by his legal representative after the death of the original decree-holder whereas in the instant case, the original decree-holder died even before E.P. No. 129 of 1963, out of which this revision arose, was filed and as no decision covering this aspect of the case seems to have been placed before him. This is how the revision petition has come before us.