TARABAI JAIN Vs. SHIVNARAYAN KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter arises out of an execution proceeding. A compromise decree was passed in favour of Sobhagyamal Jain against Shivnarayan Kothari. In this case, as per the terms of decree, the defendant was required to vacate the premises by 1-8-1978. On his failure to vacate the premises, the plaintiff shall execute the decree and secure possession of the suit property along with the costs of the suit and damages with interest at the rate of Re. 1 per cent per month till 1-8-1978 and Rs. 2/- per day after 1-8-1978 till the possession was delivered to the plaintiff. On failure by defendant to vacate the premises Soubhagyamal Jain put the decree in the execution. The entire amount is also deposited in the Court.

(2.) THE decree-holder died during execution and the applicants applied before the Court for substitution of their names as legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder. The trial Court has held that the legal representatives cannot proceed with execution unless they produce succession certificate. Learned trial Court relied upon Section 214 (1) (b) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). Section 214 (1) (b) of the Act is reproduced below :

(3.) THE provision prohibits execution, against the debtor, of a decree or order for the payment on his death, except on production of probate or letters of administration, certificate granted Under Section 31 or 32 of the Administrator General Act, 1913, succession certificate granted under Part X, having the debt specified therein.