GANPAYA NARNAPPA Vs. KRISHNAPPA ANNAYA HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was an application under Order XXI, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, by the assignee of a decree to be placed on the record as the decree-holder. The decree was originally paused in favour of Ganpaya defendant in Suit No. 333 of 1911. Ganpaya died leaving a daughter-in-law Mahadev-amma. A succession certificate was granted to her mother-in-law, who was also called Mahadevarama. As a holder of that succession certificate she collected Rs. 500 of the decretal amount after agreeing with the judgment-debtor to compromise for Rs. 50 less. Since the case was before the District Judge, we have decided in Raghunath V/s. Gangaram (1923) 25 Bom. L.R. 474 that when an application is made to the Court under 0. XXI, Rule 16, it must be made to the Court as the Court which passed the decree and not as the Court which is executing the decree, so that proof can be given of any uncertified payments. Therefore the judgment-debtor was entitled in resisting the application to plead that the debt was satisfied. But unfortunately for him he could not plead that the debt had been wholly satisfied as the holder of the succession certificate was not entitled to compromise without the intervention of the Court. The application, therefore, to that extent must succeed, but the judgment-debtor was entitled to the benefit of the payment made to Muhadevamma under the succession certificate given to her. The lower appellate Judge appears to have thought that the payment was made by the judgment- debtor to an unauthorised person. There seemed to be some confusion in the minds of the parties with regard to the position of a holder of a succession certificate who has to collect the debts due to the estate of a minor. He cannot be compared to a certificated guardian. Such a succession certificate holds good until the minor takes steps to revoke it on coming of age, so it does not follow that the moment the minor becomes eighteen years of age, the succession certificate is no longer valid, and that if any payment is made to the holder it is made to an unauthorised person. Therefore, an order will be made on the application that the applicant should be placed on the record in place of the original decree-holder, but that the Court should take notice in executing the decree of all payments which had been made to Mahadevamma under the succession certificate. We understand that as a matter of fact Rs. 50 remain to be paid under the decree.

(2.) The appeal is allowed.

(3.) The appellant is entitled to his costs throughout. Shah, J.