Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. This was an application under Order XXI, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, by the assignee of a decree to be placed on the record as the decree-holder. The decree was originally paused in favour of Ganpaya defendant in Suit No. 333 of 1911. Ganpaya died leaving a daughter-in-law Mahadev-amma. A succession certificate was granted to her mother-in-law, who was also called Mahadevarama. As a holder of that succession certificate she collected Rs. 500 of the decretal amount after agreeing with the judgment-debtor to compromise for Rs. 50 less. Since the case was before the District Judge, we have decided in Raghunath v. Gangaram : AIR1923Bom404 that when an application is made to the Court under 0. XXI, Rule 16, it must be made to the Court as the Court which passed the decree and not as the Court which is executing the decree, so that proof can be given of any uncertified payments. Therefore the judgment-debtor was entitled in resisting the application to plead that the debt was satisfied. But unfortunately for him he could not plead that the debt had been wholly satisfied as the holder of the succession certificate was not entitled to compromise without the intervention of the Court. The application, therefore, to that extent must succeed, but the judgment-debtor was entitled to the benefit of the payment made to Muhadevamma under the succession certificate given to her. The lower appellate Judge appears to have thought that the payment was made by the judgment-debtor to an unauthorised person. There seemed to be some confusion in the minds of the parties with regard to the position of a holder of a succession certificate who has to collect the debts due to the estate of a minor. He cannot be compared to a certificated guardian. Such a succession certificate holds good until the minor takes steps to revoke it on coming of age, so it does not follow that the moment the minor becomes eighteen years of age, the succession certificate is no longer valid, and that if any payment is made to the holder it is made to an unauthorised person. Therefore, an order will be made on the application that the applicant should be placed on the record in place of the original decree-holder, but that the Court should take notice in executing the decree of all payments which had been made to Mahadevamma under the succession certificate. We understand that as a matter of fact Rs. 50 remain to be paid under the decree.
2. The appeal is allowed.
3. The appellant is entitled to his costs throughout.
4. I agree. As regards the question whether in view of the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 2(3) evidence of payment not certified could be given, it seems to me that on the facts of the present case we are bound by the decision in Raghunath v. Gangaram : AIR1923Bom404 . Though I confess that I feel some difficulty in distinguishing the case of a person claiming as a transferee from the decree-holder from that of a decree-holder claiming the same amount so far as the application of Rule 2 is concerned, I think that effect may be given to the distinction made in Raghunath v. Gangaram.
5. As regards the question whether the person in whose favour the certificate was issued, that is, Mahadevamma the widow of Ganpaya, as the guardian of her minor daughter-in-law, was competent to receive the payment, the argument for the respondent is that the authority given to her under the succession certificate came to an end as soon as the minor attained majority. There is an express provision in the Guardians and Wards Act providing that on the ward attaining majority the guardianship ceases. There is no such provision in the Succession Certificate Act and ordinarily I should say that a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act gives an authority to the person holding the certificate to receive the payment. It is intended to protect the debtor who pays money to the person holding such certificate. There is also a provision in the Act for the revocation of the certificate, and it would be hazardous and inconvenient, it seems to me, to hold that the certificate which has not been formally revoked has ceased to be operative in the sense that the debtor who makes a payment on the strength of the certificate can be held not to have been justified in making that payment to the person holding the certificate. I am unable to accept the argument urged on behalf of the respondent as also the view taken by the lower appellate Court that Mahadevamma who held the certificate was not authorised to receive the payment under the circumstances. Such a conclusion would be inconsistent with the basic principle underlying Section 22 of the Act and the general scheme of the Act. Order XXXII, rule 0, which has been relied upon by Mr. Patkar, does not appear to me to have any application to the facts of this case. The payment is not received by Mahadevamma as the next friend or guardian in suit of the minor within the meaning of this) rule; but it is received by her under a certificate, which authorised her to receive it under the Succession Certificate Act. That gives sufficient protection to the person making the payment, so far as the actual payment is concerned, even though the certificate may have become inoperative or invalid in law, provided the payment is made in ignorance of its having become inoperative or invalid.