G.M.LODHA,J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit which was between the landlord and tenant. The plaintiffs' suit for arrears of rent was held to be liable to be decreed by the first appellate Court. The plaintiffs' claim for arrears of rent was found to be correct by the first appellate Court, and as a consequence of the above finding normally a decree for Rs. 158 12 should have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. However, the first appellate Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the original plaintiff Tewari kanhaiyalal has died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives have not produced succession certificate
(2.) THE legal representatives are wife of deceased Kanhaiyalal the sons and daughters of Arun Kumar who also died during the pendency of the appeal and who was son of Kanhaiyalal, and daughter's daughters of Vijay Laxmi who also expired and so also son of Gokul Kumari who is daughter of Kanhaiyalal who also expired. Shri J.K. Singhi learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that according to the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Beharilal v. Wasundhara Bai, AIR 1956 Madhya Bharat p. 35, the arrears of rent and mesne profits are not included in the word, 'debt' as used in Section 214 of the Succession Act, and, therefore, there was no necessity of submission of succession certificate. Para 6 reads as under : "The third contention raised by the appellant is that the plaintiff cannot obtain a decree without obtaining succession certificate. The learned counsel for the appellant referred me to Section 214, Succession Act, which corresponds to Section 4, Indore Succession Certificate Act lays down that no Court shall pass a decree against the debtor for payment o his debt to a person claiming to be entitled to the effects of the deceased or to any part thereof....... except on the production by the person so claiming of a succession certificate." "..... The word, 'Debt' as such in Section 214 does not include arrears of rent or mense profits. This section does not preclude suits for ejectment, it only bars suits to recover debts owed to the deceased." Apart from the above decision of Madhya Bharat High Court, Shri J.K. Singhi has also invited my attention to the judgment of Rajasthan Court in Ganeshmal v. Anand Kanwar and others, AIR 1968 Raj. 273 in which the Division Bench of this Court held as under :- "9. Before we conclude, we think it proper to make it clear that we express no opinion as to whether a succession certificate would be necessary in case a person wants to proceed with the execution application of a deceased decree-holder as a surviving coparcener under the Hindu Law."
(3.) NO one has appeared to oppose the appeal. The first appellate Court did not grant the decree on the ground that the succession certificate was not produced.;