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 first defendant.

3. After the trial of the suit was over and the suit was posted for judgment the second defendant died on 21st February, 1971. Preliminary decree in the partition suit was nevertheless passed on 27th February, 1971. Thereafter the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 521 of 1972 under Order 22, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that his minor son the petitioner in this revision petition be impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased second defendant. The case set up by the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the application is that on 19th January, 1971 the second defendant executed a registered will Exhibit A-l bequeathing her half share in the A schedule property to the revision petitioner and as such the revision petitioner was entitled to be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased second defendant. The application was vehimently opposed by the first defendant on the ground that the will, despite its registration, was brought about by fraud undue influence and coercion: and that as such the revision petitioner ought not to be given recognition as the legal representative of the second defendant and brought on record.

4. On account of the rival contention of the parties about the legality and validity of the will, the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to record detailed evidence of both parties in support of their respective contention and ultimately he held for several reasons set out by him in his order that the will on which reliance was placed to get recognition of the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased second defendant must have been brought about by either fraud or undue influence and therefore the revision petitioner cannot be recognised as the legal representative of the deceased second defendant and brought on record. Aggrieved by this order, the revision petitioner has come forward with this revision.

5. I am afraid that the learned Subordinate Judge has completely misconstrued the purport and the object of order 22, rule 3 and rule 4 and the scope of the enquiry that has to be conducted as contemplated under Order 22, rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when there are rival claimants for getting recognition of the Court as the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or defendant in a pending action. Order 22, rule 5 reads as follows:

" When a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court....."

6. It is needless to say that though a duty is cast by rule 5 of Order 22, on the Court to determine who is the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, there need not be a comprehensive and exhaustive enquiry t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document