The determination of legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC is limited to representation in the suit and does not confer any independent rights to the property. Inter se disputes between legal representatives must be independently tried and decided in separate proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - I.A. 10718/2021(O-XXII R-4 of CPC), I.A. 10812/2021 (O-XXII R-4 of CPC)

1. These are two separate applications filed on behalf of the plaintiff 1(ii), one of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff and the defendant no.2 for being impleaded as legal heirs of the defendant no.1, who is stated to have expired on 13th August, 2021.

2. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, it may be relevant to consider the following facts:

2.1. The present suit was instituted by Smt. Vinita Verma, the original plaintiff, in the year 2014 seeking relief of partition along with other ancillary reliefs.

2.2. The defendant no.1 (since deceased), was the brother of the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 is the sister of the plaintiff.

2.3. The immovable property, F-1/6 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi (suit property) belonged to the mother of the parties, late Smt. Usha Katarmal, who is stated to have expired intestate on 1st April, 2013, leaving behind the original plaintiff and the defendants as her only Class-I legal heirs. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed 1/3rd share in the aforesaid property.

2.4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the original defendant no.1, it has been pleaded that a family settlement was arrived at between the family members, whereby the defendant no.1 and his mother, late Smt. Usha Katarmal, were made joint owners of the aforesaid suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff can at best be entitled to 1/3rd share in the 50% share of her mother, late Smt. Usha Katarmal, and the defendant no.1 was entitled to 66.66% share in the suit property after the demise of his mother.

2.5. The original plaintiff expired on 11th March, 2019 and thereafter, two separate applications were filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by her two children for implement as her legal heirs.

2.6. The aforesaid applications were allowed vide order dated 29th March, 2022 passed by this Court, whereby both her children, Mr. Amit Verma (son) and Mrs. Radhika Verma (daughter) were impleaded as legal heirs of the plaintiff, being plaintiff no.1(i) and plaintiff no.1(ii) respectively.

2.7. Subsequently, the defendant no.1, who did not have any Class-I legal heirs expired on 21st July, 2021 and the present applications were filed on behalf of the plaintiff no.1(ii) and the defendant no.2 for being impleaded as legal representatives of the defendant no.1.

2.8. The defendant no.2 seeks impleadment as legal representative of the defendant no.1 on the basis that the defendant no.1 expired intestate, without leaving behind any Class-I heirs with defendant no.2 being the only Class-II legal heir.

2.9. Plaintiff no.1(ii) has filed the application as the legal representative of the defendant no.1 on the basis of a registered Will dated 5th April, 2021, in terms of which the defendant no.1 had bequeathed the suit property in favour of the plaintiff no.1(ii).

3. Counsel for the defendant no.2 submits that the purported Will of the defendant no.1 propounded by the plaintiff no.1(ii) is surrounded by suspicious circumstances as the signatures of the defendant no.1 on the said Will do not match the signatures of the defendant no.1 on the pleadings filed in the present suit. Further, the defendant no.1 was suffering from severe ill health and was not in a position to visit the office of the Sub-Registrar for registration of the said Will. Therefore, in terms of Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC, the defendant no.2 alone should be impleaded as a legal representative of the deceased defendant no.1. Counsel for the defendant no.2 has placed reliance has been placed on the following judgments:

i. Mahanath Satyanand v. Shyam Lal Chauhan, (2018) 18 SCC 485;

ii. Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, (2008) 8 SCC 521

4. On behalf of the plaintiff no.1(i), it has been submitted that the plaintiff no.1(ii) is already impleaded as the legal representative of the original plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff no