Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 985 (AP)

Mitta Sankaranna (died) per LRs v. B. Bommayya

2008-11-18

G.ROHINI

body2008
Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment dated 22-1-2008 in O.S. No.319 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, to the extent of the direction that a decree in terms of the Judgment shall be passed on furnishing a succession certificate by the petitioners herein. 2. Thefacts, in brief, are as under: One Mitta Sankaranna filed O.S.No.319 of 2005 for recovery of Rs. 2,95,971/-allegedly due from the defendant/respondent herein on the basis of three promissory notes dated 8-2-1997, 11-12-1999 and 5-12-2002. The defendant did not choose to appear and he was set ex parte. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff Mitta Sankaranna died and the petitioners 2 to 4 herein being his legal representatives filed I.A.No.468 of 2007 to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the same was ordered by the Court below on 22-8-2007. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner herein (2nd plaintiff) was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-11 documents were filed in support of the suit claim. On appreciation of the said evidence, the Court below held that the suit claim was proved. However, having regard to the fact that the original creditor, Mitta Sankaranna died, it was held that no decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 unless a succession certificate is produced. Accordingly, while passing the judgment dated 22-1-2008 it was ordered that a decree shall be passed on furnishing the succession certificate. 1. 3. Aggrieved by the said direction, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. 5. Despite notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court. 4. 6. It is to be noted that on the death of the sole plaintiff the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.468 of 2007 and the same was ordered on 22-8-2007 permitting them to come on record and prosecute the suit in the place of the deceased plaintiff. In other words, the petitioners herein have been recognized as legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff. It is also relevant to note that the defendant did not choose to contest the suit claim much less the order dated 22-8-2007 in I.A. No.468 of 2007. 5. 7. In other words, the petitioners herein have been recognized as legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff. It is also relevant to note that the defendant did not choose to contest the suit claim much less the order dated 22-8-2007 in I.A. No.468 of 2007. 5. 7. In thecircumstances, the question of obtaining succession certificate does not arise and there is no valid ground to hold that the petitioners herein are not entitled to suit claim. 6. 8. It is true that in J. Kista Reddy v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Rangapu 2005 (2) ALT 70 . relied upon by the petitioners, the sole plaintiff died after the suit was decreed. However, the Court below was not correct in distinguishing the said decision and insisting upon the production of succession certificate merely on the ground that the plaintiff in the present case died during the pendency of the suit. As noticed above, neither the defendant who owes money to the deceased' plaintiff nor any other person has set up any adverse interest to that of the petitioners for the suit claim. Moreover the petitioners were already recognized as the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff and were permitted to prosecute the suit. Hence, the Court has no option except to grant a decree in their favour in terms of the judgment. Similar view was taken by this Court in S. Satish Traders v. A. Anjaneyulu 2000 (4) ALT 15 and G. Buddanna (died) Per L.Rs. v. B. Subbarayudu 2005 (1) ALT 395 . 9. For the aforesaid reasons there is no need to obtain succession certificate under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act and the direction of the Court below to that affect in the judgment dated 22-1-2008 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to pass a decree in terms of the judgment in O.S.No.319 of 2005 dated 22-1-2008. No costs.