R.V. Raveendran J.

1. Leave granted. Heard.

2. The appellants claim to be the legal representatives of one Jaladi Suguna. The said Suguna had filed a suit in OS No.658/1987 in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Vijayawada, seeking a declaration that the registered gift deed dated 27.3.1980 executed by her in favour of the first Respondent Trust (`Trust for short) in respect of the suit property was null and void and for a consequential injunction restraining the said Trust from interfering with her rights.

3. The Trust was the first defendant and the tenant in occupation of a portion of the suit property was the second defendant in the said suit. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court by Judgment and Decree dated 25.8.1999, declaring that the said gift deed to be void and restraining the Trust from interfering with her possession.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the Trust filed Appeal Suit No.294/2000 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Suguna who was the first respondent in the said appeal, died during the pendency of the appeal, on 21.3.2002. The Trust herein filed an application (CMP No.10258/2002) to bring her husband (the third respondent herein) on record, as her legal representative.

5. The appellants, who are the nieces and nephews of Suguna filed an application (CMP No.13807/2002) seeking leave to come on record as her legal representatives. The husband of the deceased claimed that she died in testate and he was the sole legal heir. Incidentally, he also supported the case of the Trust in the litigation. The appellants claimed that the deceased had bequeathed the suit property to them under a will and they were interested in representing and safeguarding the estate of the deceased which included the suit property and they should therefore be permitted to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased. Thus, there was a dispute as to who is or are the legal representatives of the deceased Suguna. Therefore, the High Court directed the Trial Court, under the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 22 of Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC for short) to try the said question and submit its finding.

6. The Trial Court accordingly, held an enquiry and submitted a report dated 28.11.2005 recording a finding that the deceased Suguna had executed two wills dated 27.4.1989 and 24.12.2002 in favour of the appellants under which the suit property was bequeathed to them. On this finding, their application to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased Suguna deserved to be accepted.

7. On the receipt of the said report, the High Court ought to have determined the question as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased Suguna, as required by Order 22 Rule 5 CPC. But it did not do so. Instead, it proceeded to hear the main appeal itself as also the said two LR applications and rendered its Judgment dated 19.9.2006.

8. In the judgment, it formulated the following two points as arising for its consideration in the appeal :

(i) whether the gift deed dated 27.3.1980 was void; and (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation. It considered the said two points and answered them in the affirmative in favour of the Trust. Thereafter, it referred to the death of Suguna during the pendency of the appeal and the dispute arising on account of two LR applications. It considered the rival claims and the finding of the trial court. It disagreed with the finding of the trial court and held that it was not satisfied that Suguna had executed any will in favour of appellants. Consequently, CMP No.10258/2002 filed by the Trust to bring on record the third Respondent as the legal representative of the deceased Suguna was allowed and CMP No.13807/2002 filed by the appellants herein was dismissed. The High Court however clarified that its findings in regard to legal representatives being summary in nature, the appellants can agitate their right in an independent legal proceeding. In view of its finding on the two points relating to merits, the Hig