Execution — Legal representatives (Section 146 CPC) — A legal representative claiming under a deceased decree-holder may maintain execution proceedings representing the deceased even if he was not a party to the original suit: Section 146 CPC permits proceedings by/against persons “claiming under” another. Execution court therefore cannot refuse jurisdiction merely because the claimant was not a party to the original suit. Scope of execution court — Wills and questions of title — Although execution courts are confined to enforcement of decrees, they must still examine whether a decree remains unsatisfied and whether the applicant (legal representative) is entitled to execute the decree in his representative capacity. When title disputes (e.g., competing Wills) bear directly on right to execute, the execution court must decide such facets as necessary for execution and may not dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without enquiry. Procedure — Order XXI, Rules 22–35 CPC — Where execution petition invokes the legal representative’s right and opposing party raises counter-claims based on Will or succession, the execution court must conduct enquiry (including witness evidence and document proof) rather than summarily dismissing on the ground that declaration of title requires a separate suit. Remedy and disposition — Where execution court dismisses an execution petition on incorrect view of limited jurisdiction, High Court in revision may set aside and remit the matter for de novo enquiry into maintainability and merits in execution proceedings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1275 OF 2025

Between:

1. NAYINENI JANAKAMMA (DEAD) & ORS. — PETITIONERS / DHRS

2. BANDALAMOORI VENKALAKSHMAMMA (DEAD) & ORS. — RESPONDENTS / JDRS

Counsel:
For Petitioners: Sri P. Rajasekhar, Advocate.
For Respondents: Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, Advocate.

HEADNOTES

1. Execution — Legal representatives (Section 146 CPC) — A legal representative claiming under a deceased decree-holder may maintain execution proceedings representing the deceased even if he was not a party to the original suit: Section 146 CPC permits proceedings by/against persons “claiming under” another. Execution court therefore cannot refuse jurisdiction merely because the claimant was not a party to the original suit.

2. Scope of execution court — Wills and questions of title — Although execution courts are confined to enforcement of decrees, they must still examine whether a decree remains unsatisfied and whether the applicant (legal representative) is entitled to execute the decree in his representative capacity. When title disputes (e.g., competing Wills) bear directly on right to execute, the execution court must decide such facets as necessary for execution and may not dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without enquiry.

3. Procedure — Order XXI, Rules 22–35 CPC — Where execution petition invokes the legal representative’s right and opposing party raises counter-claims based on Will or succession, the execution court must conduct enquiry (including witness evidence and document proof) rather than summarily dismissing on the ground that declaration of title requires a separate suit.

4. Remedy and disposition — Where execution court dismisses an execution petition on incorrect view of limited jurisdiction, High Court in revision may set aside and remit the matter for de novo enquiry into maintainability and merits in execution proceedings.

FACTS (condensed, material points only)

• O.S. No.41 of 1981 (Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur) was a suit for partition. Final decree allotted half share to plaintiff Nayineni Janakamma and half to B. V. Lakshmamma. Execution petitioner E.P. No.69 of 2008 was earlier prosecuted by D.Hr. No.1 (Janakamma) to take her half. E.P. No.125 of 2018 was later filed claiming delivery of physical possession of the remaining half share (the E.P. schedule property) alleged to belong to the other judgment-debtor (B.V. Lakshmammma).

• The 2nd revision-petitioner (N. Suresh Kumar) claims as legal representative of N. Janakamma (who died) under a registered Will dated 23.05.2014 and sought execution (delivery of possession) against J.Dr. No.2.

• J.Dr. No.2 opposed the execution petition, asserting that (a) B.V. Lakshmamma executed a registered Will dated 29.09.2010 in favour of J.Dr. No.2 and therefore succeeded to the half share; (b) the Will of D.Hr. No.1 (Janakamma) — relied upon by the revision-petitioner — is not proved; and (c) the revision-petitioner had earlier caused I.A. proceedings to be closed mala fide.

• In the execution enquiry both sides led evidence and marked documents (Wills, certified orders, objection letters, passbook / title material, petitions). After evidence the execution court dismissed E.P. No.125/2018 on the ground that the execution court had “limited powers” and could not adjudicate rights under Wills and hence the petition was not maintainable without a decree of a competent court.

• Aggrieved, the 2nd revision petitioner filed C.R.P. No.1275/2025 (joined by the deceased D.Hr.’s representatives).

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the execution court erred in dismissing E.P. No.125/2018 on the ground that the 2nd revision petitioner (legal representative) was not a party to the original suit and thus had no locus to maintain execution proceedings?

2. Whether the execution court was right in holding that it had “limited powers” and that rights based on Wills cannot be determined in execution and therefore dismissed the petition without enquiry?

3. What is the correct course — should execution court re-open enquiry to determine maintainability and, if necessary, the related issues of Will genuineness and entitlement before executing the decree?

FINDINGS / REASONS (record-based synthesis)

1. Statutory power — Section 146 CPC: The Court relied on Section 146 CPC (proceedings by/against representatives) and held that a legal representative claiming under a deceased party may maintain execution. The execution court’s view that it had only "limited powers" and therefore could not entertain an execution petition by the legal representative was an error of law because Section 146 authorises proceedings by/against persons claiming under others.

2. Jurisdiction ≠ summary refusal: Because the applicant asserted enforcement of rights flowing from the decree as the deceased’s legal representative, the execution court could not summarily disown jurisdiction. It had a duty to enquire into whether the decree remained unsatisfied and whether the legal representative is entitled to execute the decree; that enquiry may inevitably touch upon the genuineness of Wills and succession, but that does not automatically oust execution jurisdiction.

3. Need for enquiry into antecedent facts: The order observes that the execution court did not go into merits (genuineness of Wills or whether the decree was already satisfied by earlier execution E.P. No.69 of 2008). Those are material questions which the execution court should have examined before dismissal: e.g., whether the plaintiff had already taken possession of her allotted half (and whether the remaining half is liable for execution), and whether the 2nd revision petitioner is a proper legal representative entitled to prosecute execution. If the decree is already fully satisfied, execution may be unnecessary; otherwise execution court must decide entitlement.

4. On evidence already placed: Both sides examined witnesses and produced documentary evidence (registered Wills, certified orders, counters, notices). The execution court’s dismissal without deciding the substantive points after hearing evidence was therefore procedurally wrong.

5. Effect of competing Wills: The Court clarifies implications — if J.Dr. No.2’s Will (29.09.2010) is proved, then D.Hr. No.1 (Janakamma) could not inherit that half and could not pass title by her Will; conversely, if J.Dr. No.2’s Will fails and Janakamma succeeds to the share, then the genuineness of Janakamma’s Will (23.05.2014) must be examined to determine whether the revision petitioner can claim delivery of possession.

HOLDING / CONCLUSION

• The High Court found an error of law in the execution court’s conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an execution petition brought by the legal representative. The impugned order dated 13.03.2025 dismissing E.P. No.125 of 2018 is set aside.

• The matter is remitted to the execution court (Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur) with directions to conduct a fresh enquiry into E.P. No.125/2018, considering all evidence (including both Wills and previous execution proceedings) and to determine, inter alia:

1. Whether the decree was already satisfied in respect of the scheduled half (by earlier E.P. No.69/2008 or otherwise);

2. Whether the 2nd revision petitioner is a bona fide legal representative of the deceased decree-holder and thereby entitled to prosecute execution;

3. The genuineness and effect of the competing registered Wills (Exhibits P1, R7 etc.) and related documentary material, insofar as they bear upon the right to execute the decree and the right to delivery of possession;

4. Any other incidental matters necessary to determine maintainability and the execution relief.

• The execution court must proceed under Order XXI (Rules 22–35) C.P.C., hear parties on merits, decide questions of title only to the extent necessary for execution, and pass appropriate orders instead of dismissing on jurisdictional technicality.

• No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

DIRECTIONS 

1. Impugned order (13.03.2025) is set aside.

2. Execution Court (Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur) to reopen / conduct de novo enquiry in E.P. No.125 of 2018 and decide all maintainability / entitlement questions (including whether decree remains to be executed and genuineness/effect of relevant Wills) and thereafter pass reasoned order.

3. The Court should proceed by recording evidence already taken, permitting additional evidence if necessary, and decide under the powers available in execution proceedings (Order XXI CPC), including appropriate interlocutory directions.

4. The High Court made no order as to costs.