The main legal point established is that the claims of legal heirship should be addressed in separate proceedings and should not form the subject matter of the current appeal.

V.K. Gupta, C.J.—Civil First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by Sant Lai, Shila Devi and Pushpa Paul, appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the Court of learned District Judge, Solan against the judgment and decree dated 27th June, 1998 in Civil Suit No. 39/1 of 97/85 in which Smt. Sumitra daughter of Shri Shiv Dutt was defendant No. 1 and Smt. Mohindra Kumari, Smt. Arun Prabha and Smt. Sharda Kumari were defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Smt. Shila Devi and Pushpa Paul, appellants No. 2 and 3 undoubtedly were parties in Civil Suit No. 39/1 of 97/85. In the Civil Suit apart from appellant No. 1 Sant Lai, Dharam Singh was the first co-plaintiff but since Dharam Singh subsequently died, Shila Devi and Pushpa Paul, being his widow and daughter respectively joined Sant Lai as the co-appellants in the aforesaid first appeal.

2. The Civil suit was filed by plaintiffs, Dharam Singh and Sant Lai for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of a particular piece of land and a mutation attested in the name of one late Lachhmi Devi and another mutation attested in the names of the defendants in the said suit was illegal, void ab initio and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiffs. In the said Civil Suit the aforesaid two plaintiffs had also asked for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants therein from causing interference in the suit land in any manner. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 27th June, 1998 against which the aforesaid first appeal was filed, as has been noticed at the outset. During the pendency of the first appeal the first respondent Sumitra Devi died. She died on 11th October, 1998. Consequent upon her death, appellant Sant Lai filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said application, he made the following prayer:— "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the name of Smt. Sumitra may please be deleted from the array of respondents and Sh. Sant Lal appellant No. 1 may be treated as legal representative of deceased Smt. Sumitra."

3. The learned District Judge proceeded to consider and dispose of the said application and in the process framed the following three Issues: "1. Whether the appellant Shri Sant Lai is the sole legal heir of Smt. Sumitra respondent No. 1 as alleged? OPA. 2. Whether Smt. Sumitra executed a valid Will dated 24.8.1998 in favour of daughters of her late sister Shakuntla Devi, namely, Smt. Aruna Prabha and Sharda Devi as alleged? OPR. 3. Relief."

4. On Issue No. 1 he held Sant Lai appellant No. 1 as the sole legal heir of deceased Sumitra Devi. With respect to Issue No. 2 he held, found and declared that Sumitra Devi had not executed any Will in favour of Arun Prabha and Sharda Kumari, respondents. Operative part of the impugned order dated 11th June, 2002 reads thus:— "24. For the foregoing reasons, findings and observations, it is concluded that Sant Lai appellant is the sole heir and legal representative of Smt. Sumitra Devi, deceased being her first cousin. She has no other surviving heir than the said Sh. Sant Lai, appellant. The name of Smt. Sumitra Devi be deleted from the title of the plaint and memorandum of the appeal. The application stands allowed to the extent as observed hereinbefore."

5. Whether Sant Lai appellant was the sole legal representative of deceased Sumitra Devi on any basis, or whether he was not the sole legal representative of deceased Sumitra Devi, or whether respondents Arun Prabha and Sharda Kumari were the legal representatives of deceased Sumitra Devi on the basis of an alleged Will which they claimed was executed on 24th August, 1998, or whether they were not the legal representatives of deceased Sumitra Devi were and could not be questions and issues which might have fallen for consideration in the aforesaid application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC because these were outside the scope of the suit filed