L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two C. R. Ps. are filed against the common order dated 15-9-2003 passed by the Court of dc Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad in LA. Nos. 257 of 2001 and 212 of 2003 in O. S. No. 279 of 1999. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order:

( 2 ) PARTIES in both the revisions are identical.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 279 of 1999 in the Trial Court for the relief of declaration to the effect that the sale deed executed by the 4th respondent, (who is since dead), in favour of Respondents 1 to 3, is illegal and unenforceable in law. The petitioner is son of late G. V. Satyananaraana reddy. The 4th respondent his stepmother. Respondent No. 5 is his maternal uncle. It is his case that there is a settlement between himself, Respondent No. 4 and Respondent no. 5, in which the suit schedule property was settled upon him and contrary to the same, the 4th respondent has executed the sale deed in question.

( 4 ) THE evidence of Respondent No. 4 was recorded out of turn on account of her failing health. She narrated the circumstances under which the settlement came into existence, it was revoked thereafter, and those leading to the execution of the sale deed. She died some time thereafter. Petitioner filed LA. No. 257 of 2001 under Order 22, Rule 5 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C.) praying the Trial Court to decide as to who shall be the legal heir of the deceased Respondent No. 4.

( 5 ) LA. No. 212 of 2003 was filed by respondents 6 and 7 herein to get themselves impleaded as Defendants 6 and 7. According to them, the 4th respondent executed a will bequeathing the suit schedule property and certain other items, in their favour and on the death of the 4th respondent, the said properties devolved upon them. Through a common order, the Trial Court held that the petitioner is the natural legal heir of the deceased 4th respondent. It was further held that since the interests of the petitioner were adverse to those of the deceased 4th respondent, and since is said to have executed a will, in respect of the suit schedule property, Respondents 6 and 7 shall be the legal representatives of the deceased 4th respondent for the purpose of the suit. The petitioner challenges the orders of the Trial Court.

( 6 ) SRI M. R. K. Choudhary, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the Trial Court held that the petitioner is the natural legal heir of the deceased 4th respondent, the petitioner alone ought to have been permitted to represent the 4th respondent and there does not exist any legal basis to maintain a distinction between the legal heir and legal representative.

( 7 ) HE contends that the claim of respondents 6 and 7 can be recognized and taken into account, only when their rights under the alleged will are established by a Court of competent jurisdiction. He asserts that the validity or otherwise of the will cannot be the subject-matter of the present suit. It is his case that the respondents 6 and 7 cannot be impleaded as defendants in the suit, much less, be permitted to represent the estate of the deceased 4th respondent.

( 8 ) SRI B. Prakash Reddy, learned additional Advocate-General appearing for respondents submits that since the interests of the petitioner were adverse to those of the deceased 4th respondent, he cannot be permitted to act as legal representative. He submits that being a legal heir is different from being recognised as legal representative and that the latter would invariably depend on the unity of interests. He also contends that the enforceability of the will has certainly to be gone into in the present suit itself, since it relates to the suite schedule property.

( 9 ) THE petitioner filed the suit for the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by the 4th respondent in favour of respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and unenforc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document