ORDER.- The question for consideration in this revision petition is whether the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tirupattur in I.A. No. 521 of 1972 in O.S. No. 41 of 1968 on the file of his Court holding that the revision petitioner is not the legal representative of the deceased second defendant is a sustainable order or not.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein who were arrayed as the plaintiff and first defendant in the suit are brothers and are the grandsons of the deceased 2nd defendant through her daughter. The first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit far partition and separate possession of his ¼th share in the A schedule property and half share in the B schedule property. It is not disputed that the first defendant is entitled to the remaining half share in the B schedule property and. ¼th share in the A schedule property. It is also the common case of parties that the second defendant was solely entitled to the remaining half share of the A schedule property in pursuance of a registered will executed by her sister Balambal on 2nd June, 1928. She was made a party to the suit inasmuch as she was in joint possession of the A schedule property along with the plaintiff and the fir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document