The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has clarified that Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not prohibit the institution or trial of a suit for recovery of debt by legal heirs, but only bars the passing of a decree without a succession certificate. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, while dismissing a Civil Revision Petition, further held that the 12-year limitation period for mortgage suits under Article 62 of the Limitation Act commences from the date when the money becomes “due,” not necessarily from the date of the deed’s execution.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a suit (O.S. No. 1225 of 2017) filed by Mutta Lakshmi Narasamma and three others (respondents/plaintiffs) against G. Chaya Padmini (petitioner/defendant). The plaintiffs, as legal heirs of late Mutta Pydiraju, sought a decree for payment of money based on a mortgage deed dated February 26, 2004.
The petitioner filed an application (I.A. No. 565 of 2022) under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. She argued that the suit was barred by Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act because the plaintiffs had not obtained a succession certificate. Additionally, she contended the suit was barred by limitation, having been filed in 2017—more than 12 years after the mortgage deed was executed in 2004. The Trial Court rejected this application on July 15, 2025, leading to the present revision petition.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a succession certificate was a mandatory requirement for the plaintiffs to institute a suit for recovery of money based on a mortgage deed executed in favor of the deceased. On the issue of limitation, the counsel argued that since the deed was executed in 2004 and the suit filed in 2017, it was barred on the face of the record.
The respondents (plaintiffs) contended that although the deed was executed in 2004, it specifically provided a two-year grace period for payment. Thus, the money became “due” only on February 25, 2006, making the suit filed in October 2017 well within the 12-year limitation period. They also asserted that a succession certificate was not a prerequisite for filing the suit.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
On Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act
The Court examined the statutory language of Section 214 and observed:
“A bare reading of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act shows that the bar thereunder is not for institution of the suit, but (a) for passing of a decree and (b) for execution of decree. Section 214 therefore does not bar filing or institution of a suit by the legal heirs or representatives of the deceased against the debtor.”
The Court emphasized that production of a succession certificate is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of the suit or its trial. It only prohibits the Court from “passing a decree.” Referring to the Bombay High Court’s decision in Virbhadrappa Shilvant Shop at Barsi v. Shekabai Kom Harun Sayad Ahmed Arab, the Court noted that a certificate could be produced at any time before the decree is passed.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the defendant had admitted the plaintiffs were the legal heirs in her written statement.
“On such admitted facts, no proof was required in the form of succession certificate. So, on this count also the plaint did not deserve to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”
On Limitation and Article 62
Regarding the point of limitation, Justice Tilhari analyzed Article 62 of the Limitation Act, which sets a 12-year period starting “when the money sued for becomes due.”
The Court found that the mortgage deed expressly provided a two-year period for discharge of liabilities.
“That period of two years came to an end on 25.02.2006. The period of limitation of 12 years then started to run from that date. The suit was filed on 11.10.2017 which is within the period of limitation which was available up till 25.02.2018.”
The Court cited the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mohammad Husain v. Sanwal Das (1934) and Prem Chand v. Mohammad Sayeed (1981), affirming that limitation begins only after the expiry of the stipulated period in the deed.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the suit was neither barred by Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act nor by the Law of Limitation. Finding no illegality in the Trial Court’s order, the Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
Case Details:
- Case Title: G. Chaya Padmini vs. Mutta Lakshmi Narasamma and 3 others
- Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 2425 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
- Date: April 10, 2026
