TEJ RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated February 17, 1990, passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby execution application filed by Rajesh and Tej Ram was dismissed with the observation that they should hut obtain succession certificate/letters of probate in respect of the Will of Smt. Janki Devi.

(2.) SOME land of Janki Devi was acquired for which compensation was fixed. Her refererance under Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act was decided by the Additional District Judge. Thereafter High Court decided R. F. A. No. 1454 of 1982, allowing compensation at the rare of Rs. 19/- per square yard with 15 per cent solatiasn and interest at the rate of 6 per cent with costs. After the death of Smt. Janki Devi, the present execution application was filed by Rajesh and Tej Ram claiming the amount of compensation.

(3.) SHRI C. B. Goel, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that if during the pendency of the execution decree- holder dies, his legal representatives on the basis of Will of the deceased decree-holder could continue the execution proceedings without obtaining any succession certificate or letters of probate. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision of she Patna a High Court in Raghubir Narain Singh v. Raj Rajeshwari Prasad Singh and Ors. , A. I. R. 1957 Pat. 435, and decision of the Madras High Court in Marakkal v. Eswari Ammal, 1990 (1) L. L. R. 273, wherein referring to the provision of Section 214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') it was held that the said provision only bars the institution of the execution proceed- ings and not the continence of such proceedings which were instituted by the original decree-holder. Execution proceedings having once been instituted by the original decree-holder, his Segal heirs could continue them without the production of the succession certificate. As far as proposition of law is concerned, it is so, as has been held by the two Courts referred to above. I am also of the same view. However, on facts of the present case, the position is different- In the present case earlier execution application was filed by Jaiaki Devi which was disposed of in February 1984 The present execution application was filed by Rajesh and Tej Ram claiming to be legal representatives of Janki Devi deceased on the basis of her will. Thus, in the circumstances stated, there was no question of continuing the execution application filed by the original decree holder.