- (1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the order of learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Sirsa dated 5th May, 1981 dismissing the objection petition of the judgment-debtors.
(2.) The respondent firm was granted a decree against the petitioners in the amount of Rs. 11,320/- on May 30, 1969. As one of the petitioners filed an application for setting aside the judgment and decree which proceedings continued upto August 28, 1978, the decree could not be executed. In the meantime Vishwa Nath, decree-holder, died and the present application for the execution was filed by his legal heirs. One of the objections raised against the competency of the application was that without securing the succession certificate the legal heirs, were not entitled to execute the decree. This objection as well as the other objections were over-ruled by the executing Court vide the impugned order.
(3.) The only objection pressed in this revision petition is regarding the non-competency of the legal heirs to execute the decree without first securing succession certificate. Section 214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act provides that no court shall proceed upon an application of person claiming to be so entitled to execute against a debtor, a decree or order for the payment of his debt after the death of the decree holder except on the production of a succession certificate or a probate or letters of Administration as the case may be. The learned counsel for the respondents, however relying on Khadim Hussain Khan and others v. Abdur Rahman Khan, 1956 AIR(All) 575 urged that when the decree-holder has died during the pendency of the execution proceedings, no succession certificate is required to carry on these proceedings by his legal representatives. The reliance is wholly misplaced as the observations made therein related only to the execution of the decree regarding the costs. As regards the execution of the decree passed on account of a debt, even in this decision it was observed that sub-section (b) of section 214 indicates that a decree passed against a debtor cannot be executed exception the production of a succession certificate. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on P.L Basappa v. Siddamma, 1966 AIR(Mys) 198 and Ganes Mal v. Smt. Anand Kanwar and others, 1968 AIR(Raj) 273273 and in both these decisions it was ruled that the execution of decree cannot be continued at the instance of the legal heirs without the production of a succession certificate The law is thus well established and the trial Court took a sholly erroneous view in holding that no succession certificate was required under section 214 by the legal representations to execute the decree.;