SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Raj) 3

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : R.BALIA
KALU RAM - Appellant
Versus
CHARAN SINGH - Respondent
S. B. C. R. P. 497 Of 1991
Decided On : 01/04/1993

Advocates Appeared:
B.M.AGARWAL, S.L.JAIN

A person other than a legal heir can also be a legal representative for the purpose of pending proceedings before the court.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - SECTION 2(11) - A person other than a legal heir can also be a legal representative. Even an intermeddler with the estate of the deceased can also be allowed to represent the estate for the purpose of pending proceedings before the court.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in his favor. The defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his widow was impleaded as the legal representative. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The widow filed an appeal, but she also died during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner, who claimed to be the sole legal representative of the deceased appellant, moved an application to be impleaded as the legal representative.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner had a reasonable edifice to put forward his claim for the purpose of being impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased appellant. No other claim to the estate of the deceased had come forward to have a better right to represent the estate before the Court.

Issues: Whether the petitioner had the right to be impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person other than a legal heir can also be a legal representative. Even an intermeddler with the estate of the deceased can also be allowed to represent the estate for the purpose of pending proceedings before the court. The decision as to who is the legal representative for the purpose of proceedings is necessarily limited for the purpose of carrying on the proceedings and cannot have the effect of conferring of any right of heirship to the estate of the deceased.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the lower appellate court, and ordered that the petitioner be impleaded as the appellant-legal representative of the deceased appellant.

Judgment


R. BALIA, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent-Charan Singh filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Sriganganagar, against Hazari Ram, since deceased, seeking mandatory injunction, directing the defendant-Hazari Ram to execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hazari Ram died during the pendency of the suit and his widow Musammat Roopi Devi was impleaded as Defendant, as legal representatives of Hazari Ram. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed on 24-51982. Aggrieved with the same, Mst. . Roopi filed an appeal in the Court of Addl. Districat Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar. The appellant Mst. Roopi Devi died during the pendency of appeal, on 7-8-1990. On 30/08/1990, Kalu Ram, the present petitioner before this Court, moved an application under O. 22, R. 4, for being impleaded as Legal. Representative. of Musammat Roopi, on the basis of a registered Will, executed in his favour by Mst. Roopi on 4-8-1990.

( 2 ) A reply to the application was filed, in which it was denied that the applicant was the sole legal representative of the deceased-appellant. It was also alleged that the Will, on the basis of which the applicant claims right to represent the estate of the deceased is void and no succession certificate of probate has been filed in support of claimants right to inherit the estate of Musammat Roopi. The Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, by his order dated 17-8-1991, rejected the applicants application and ordered that the appeal is abated. Hence, this petition before this Court.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged that the learned lower-appellate court has committed material irregularity and illegality in exercise of jurisdiction, in not appreciating the distinction between the concept of legal representative for the purpose of representing the estate of a deceased litigant in the proceedings before it, and, a legal heir, entitled to succeed to the property left by the deceased. In the proceedings under O. 22, R. 4, the court is only required to determine whether a person, claiming to represent the estate of deceased before tfie court in the proceedings pending before it; has any such right to represent the estate, or not and, if he has sufficient interest to represent the estate of deceased-litigant in the proceedings before the court, then he is to be impleaded as a legal representative.

( 4 ) IN this connection, it was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the petitioner, no one else has come forward to represent the estate and existence of a registered Will in his favour has not been disputed by any one, but what has been disputed is that the purported will having been executed merely 3 days before the death of Musumamat Roopi Devi leads one to infer that the execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and, therefore, it cannot be considered to be a validly executed Will. By not drawing the aforesaid distinction, between legal representative and legal heir, particularly in the light of definition of legal representative, given under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of O. 22, has resulted in grave infirmity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower appellate-court, and, on account of said error, it has resulted in substantial failure of justice inasmuch as the proceedings have been held to have been abated and the decree has been made absolute, against the estate of the deceased.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has supported the order dated 17-8-1991.

( 6 ) HAVING given my careful consideration to the rival contentions raised before me, I am of the opinion that this Revision Petition merits acceptance. Section 2 (11) of the C. P. C. , which defines legal representative, makes it abundantly clear that the persons other than legal heir can also be legal representative. Even an intermiddler with the estate of deceased can also be allowed to represent the estate for the purpose of pending proceedings




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top