AKULA MABUKHAN Vs. RAJAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The problem that calls for solution in this C. M. S. A. which has been referred to a Bench because of divergence of judicial opinion, is whether the continuance of an execution petition filed by the decree-holder himself, by his legal representatives is hit at by Section 214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925).

(2.) The circumstances which have given rise to this appeal are these. One Venkatanarasinga Rao obtained a decree in O. S. No. 43 of 1955 against the appellant-judgment-debtor on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kavali, and it was transferred to the District Munsif's Court, Gooty for execution. Shortly thereafter, the decree-holder died and the present respondents applied to come on record as his legal representatives and continue the proceedings and the petition was ordered. When execution was proceeding, an objection was taken by the judgment-debtor, the appellant, that it was not competent for the legal representatives of the decree-holder to continue the proceedings without production of a succession certificate, as the matter falls under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act. This opposition was overruled by the trial Court in the view that Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act was inapplicable to the case of continuance of an execution petition and that that section would be attracted only to a case of initiation of execution proceedings by the legal representatives of the decree-holder.

(3.) This was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge, Anantapur. In support of this conclusion, the learned District Judge placed reliance on Raghubir Narain Singh v. Raj Rajeshwari Prasad Singh A.I.R. 1957 Patna 435. In the result, the appeal was dismissed.