Back
High Court Of Calcutta
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
MUSSAMAT ASHIA KHATUN - Appellant
Versus
KARUNA SINGH - Respondent
C. O. 1598 Of 1999
Decided On : 07/20/2000
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - SECTION 2(11) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - ORDER 22 RULES 3, 4 AND 10 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - SUBSTITUTION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - INTERMEDDLER - ASSIGNMENT OR CREATION OR DEVOLUTION OF INTEREST - SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT - INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The sole appellant in an eviction suit died during the pendency of the appeal. Her heirs did not take any steps to get themselves transposed or substituted as appellants. Instead, one Sardar Taranjit Singh, claiming to be the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Central Model School and Trustee of Guru Nanak Educational Trust, filed an application under Order 22 Rules 3 and 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing him on record as the legal representative of the deceased appellant. The application was allowed by the lower appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court set aside the order of the lower appellate court and dismissed the application for substitution. The court held that the agreement between the deceased appellant and the Guru Nanak Education Trust did not confer any right, title, or interest in favor of the trust so far as the subject matter of the suit was concerned. Therefore, the opposite party could not be described as a legal representative of the Estate of the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the opposite party could be substituted as the legal representative of the deceased appellant? 2. Whether the agreement between the deceased appellant and the Guru Nanak Education Trust conferred any right, title, or interest in favor of the trust so far as the subject matter of the suit was concerned?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the word "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. In a given case, even a person having no rightful right over the property but who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased can be a legal representative. 2. The court held that in order to come within the meaning of "intermeddler," such person must intermeddle with the "estate of deceased." The court further held that in the instant case, the specific case of the opposite party was that the deceased had entered into an agreement with the Guru Nanak Education Trust for handing over the management of the school in favor of such trust during her lifetime and by virtue of such agreement, the said trust was managing the school. Thus, the right by virtue of which the opposite party claimed to be substituted was not a right accruing on the death of the appellant but the same arose by virtue of another case of devolution of interest through an inter vivos document.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revisional application and set aside the order of the lower appellate court. The court dismissed the application for substitution of the opposite party as the legal representative of the deceased appellant.
( 1 ) -THE revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of a plaintiff/respondent and is directed against Order No. 66 dated May 17, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 65 of 1994 thereby allowing an application under Order 22 Rules 3 and 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent No. 9.
( 2 ) THE present petitioner brought against one Mrs. Kuldeep Harbans Singh in the 2nd Court of Subordinate Judge, Alipore, a suit being Title Suit No. 262 of 1981 for eviction on the ground of expiry of lease for 21 years. In the said suit, her husband who was a guarantor on her behalf was also made party.
( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the husband of the lessee having died, opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 were substituted as his heirs and legal representatives in addition to the original lessee who was already on record.
( 4 ) ULTIMATELY, the learned Assistant District Judge by her judgment and decree dated November 30, 1993 decreed the aforesaid suit and directed the tenant viz. Mrs. Kuldeep Harbans Singh to vacate and deliver khas possession in favour of the petitioners within three months from the date of delivery of judgment.
( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the sole lessee viz. Mrs. Kuldeep Harbans Singh preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 65 of 1994 which was transferred to the 14th Court of Additional District Judge at Alipore. In the said appeal, the sole appellant made the other heirs of her husband as proforma respondents.
( 6 ) THE sole appellant had died on December 16, 1998 leaving opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 as her only heirs and legal representatives being the widow, sons and daughter of her predeceased son who were already on record. But those heirs did not take any step to get themselves transposed or substituted as appellants. Instead of those persons, one Sardar Taranjit Singh, the opposite party No. 9 herein claiming to be Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Central Model School and Trustee of Guru Nanak Educational Trust filed an application under Order 22 Rules 3 and 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing him on record as legal representative of the deceased appellant. In the said application it was alleged that Central Model Preparatory School has been running from the suit premises since 1961 and Mrs. Kuldeep Harbans Singh, the lessee of the premises entered into an agreement with the trustee of Guru Nanak Educational Trust by which the functions, management and administration of the preparatory school was taken over by the said trust and the said school came under direct management, control and supervision of the Managing Committee of the Central Model School as part and parcel thereof.
( 7 ) THE said application was opposed by the present petitioners thereby opposing the prayer of the opposite party No. 9.
( 8 ) THE learned first appellate Court below by the order impugned herein has allowed such application thereby permitting the opposite party No. 9 to be substituted as appellant on the ground that on the death of the sole appellant viz. Mrs. Kuldeep Harbans Singh the said opposite party No. 1 was intermeddling with the estate of the deceased and as such should be treated to be legal representative of the deceased appellant within the meaning of section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 9 ) BEING dissatisfied, the plaintiffs/respondents have came up in revision.
( 10 ) MR. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the averments made in the application under Order 22 Rules 3 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure show that the opposite party No. 9 wanted to be substituted not as legal representative of the deceased but by virtue of an agreement entered into between trustee of Guru Nanak Educational Trust and Mrs. Kuldeep Harbans Singh dated
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
