Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1506

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Legal Representative of Shri Nand Lal - Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Ajmera & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5558 and 2506 of 2014.
Decided On : 10-04-2015

For the Petitioner:Mr. Bheemkant Vyas, for Jugal Kishore Ladda, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Bheem Arora, for Smt. Santosh Devi, Advocates.

In a suit for redemption of mortgage, possession, and mesne profit, where the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, the trial court is justified in impleading both the natural heirs and the legatee under the Will as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for adjudicating related disputes in the same proceedings.

Headnote:
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - IMPLEADMENT - ORDER 22, RULE 3, 4, 5, 11 CPC - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION: 1. The determination of legal representative under Order 22, Rule 5 CPC is for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. Such determination will not confer on the person held to be the legal representative, any right to the property which is the subject-matter of the suit, vis-a-vis other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased. 2. In a suit for redemption of mortgage, possession, and mesne profit, where the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, the trial court is justified in impleading both the natural heirs and the legatee under the Will as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for adjudicating related disputes in the same proceedings. 3. The trial court is not required to decide on the validity of the Will in the enquiry to be conducted under Order 22, Rule 5 CPC, which is only for the purpose of determining whether the person claiming to be the legal representative is entitled to represent the estate of the deceased or not.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff in a suit for redemption of mortgage, possession, and mesne profit died during the pendency of the suit. Two applications were filed under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, one by the deceased's son seeking impleadment as the legal representative, and the other by the deceased's daughter-in-law claiming to be the legal representative based on a Will executed by the deceased in her favor. The trial court ordered the impleadment of both the son and the daughter-in-law as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court's order impleading both the son and the daughter-in-law as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff was upheld by the High Court. The court held that the trial court was justified in not deciding on the validity of the Will in the enquiry to be conducted under Order 22, Rule 5 CPC, which is only for the purpose of determining whether the person claiming to be the legal representative is entitled to represent the estate of the deceased or not.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court was justified in impleading both the natural heirs and the legatee under the Will as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff? 2. Whether the trial court was required to decide on the validity of the Will in the enquiry to be conducted under Order 22, Rule 5 CPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The determination of legal representative under Order 22, Rule 5 CPC is for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. Such determination will not confer on the person held to be the legal representative, any right to the property which is the subject-matter of the suit, vis-a-vis other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased. 2. In a suit for redemption of mortgage, possession, and mesne profit, where the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, the trial court is justified in impleading both the natural heirs and the legatee under the Will as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for adjudicating related disputes in the same proceedings. 3. The trial court is not required to decide on the validity of the Will in the enquiry to be conducted under Order 22, Rule 5 CPC, which is only for the purpose of determining whether the person claiming to be the legal representative is entitled to represent the estate of the deceased or not.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by both the son and the daughter-in-law, upholding the trial court's order impleading both of them as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

1. - These writ petitions have been filed by Jugal Kishore Ladda and Smt. Santosh Devi respectively aggrieved against order dated 03.05.2014, whereby, the separate applications filed by them under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC seeking impleadment as legal representatives of deceased Nand Lal have been accepted and both have been directed to be impleaded as legal representatives of deceased Nand Lal - plaintiff.

2. One Nand Lal Ladda filed a suit against defendant No. 1 - Kamlesh Ajmera for redemption of mortgage, possession and mesne profit; plaintiff - Nand Lal died during pendency of the suit on 14.02.2013; petitioner - Jugal Kishore Ladda in Civil Writ Petition No. 5558/2014 filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, inter alia, claiming that he along with Smt. Shakuntala, Ramesh Chandra Ladda, Suresh Chandra Ladda and Smt. Madhu Ajmera were legal representatives of deceased Nand Lal and only petitioner - Jugal Kishore was interested in being impleaded as legal representative of the plaintiff and, therefore, rest of the legal representatives be impleaded as formal parties; where after, another application was filed by Smt. Santosh Devi - petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 2506/2015 under Order 22, Rule 3 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC (wrongly indicated as Order 22, Rule 4 CPC), inter alia, claiming that the disputed property has been bequeathed by deceased Nand Lal - plaintiff in her favour by Will dated 10.02.2013 and, therefore, the petitioner is now the owner of the said property and entitled to be impleaded as party in place of the plaintiff.

3. A reply to the application filed by Jugal Kishore was also filed by Smt. Santosh Devi disputing the claim made by Jugal Kishore on account of the Will having been executed in her favour.

4. Jugal Kishore also filed reply to the application filed by Smt. Santosh Devi and contended that the application filed by him was correct; no Will was executed by Nand Lal in favour of Smt. Santosh Devi; the Will produced was forged; Smt. Santosh Devi was not in possession of the suit property as owner but only in her capacity as daughter-in-law of Nand Lal and, therefore, she cannot be impleaded as party. Suit for cancellation of Will was being filed and, as soon as the applicant became aware of the Will, he has disputed the same; Smt. Santosh Devi is not a necessary party and, therefore, the application filed by her deserves to be dismissed.

5. The trial court after hearing the parties by its order dated 03.05.2014, came to the conclusion that in the suit at the stage of deciding the application, the genuineness of the Will and right based on the Will cannot be decided and, therefore, it appears justified to implead all the children of deceased Nand Lal and Smt. Santosh Devi as party; the trial court further ordered that as applications have been filed by Jugal Kishore and Smt. Santosh Devi, Jugal Kishore was ordered to be impleaded as plaintiff No. 1/1 and Smt. Santosh Devi was ordered to be impleaded as plaintiff No. 1/2 and rest of the children were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to 4.

6. The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Jugal Kishore, wherein, notices were ordered to be issued to Smt. Santosh Devi; after service of notice, Smt. Santosh Devi also challenged the order passed by the trial court.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for Jugal Kishore that the trial court fell in error in not determining the legal representatives as required by Order 22, Rule 5 CPC and committed serious illegality in impleading both the children and the legatee as legal representatives of deceased - Nand Lal; it was incumbent on the trial court to determine the issue of legal representative and, in absence whereof, the order cannot be sustained; it was also submitted that petitioner - Jugal Kishore has filed a suit for cancellation of the Will, which is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court and Smt. Santosh Devi has not obtaine

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1506

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTArun Bhansali, J.Legal Representative of Shri Nand Lal - AppellantVersusKamlesh Ajmera & Ors. - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5558 and 2506 of 2014.Decided On : 10-04-2015

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Legal Representative of Shri Nand Lal - Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Ajmera & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5558 and 2506 of 2014.
Decided On : 10-04-2015