ORDER.This revision petition is against the order in I.A. No. 282 of 1973 in O.S. No. 36 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif, Periyakulam, which is an application under Order 22 rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure. One Seethammal filed the above suit for partition. There was a preliminary decree and a second appeal (S.A. No. 935 of 1969) against the preliminary decree was pending in this Court. The said Seethammal died. Koneridoss the present revision petitioner who is the husband’s sister’s son of the above said Seethammal first got himself impleaded as the legal representative of Seethammal in the second appeal (S.A. No. 935 of 1969). He had been so impleaded as the seventh respondent in that second appeal. At a later stage, Subbiah Naidu, the contesting respondent herein, filed a petition before this Court in the above second appeal for getting himself impleaded as the legal representative of Seethammal on the ground that Seethammal had left a registered will under which he (Subbiah Naidu) is the sole legatee and that therefore he is the only legal representative of Seethammal. The abovesaid petition (C.M.P. No. 14623 of 1970 in S.A. No. 935 of 1969) was disposed of by Ramanujam, J. The learned Judge did not decide who among the two rival claimants is the legal representative of Seethammal but allowed both of them to be parties to the second appeal. Subbiah Naidu, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was added as the eighth respondent in the abovesaid second appeal. While Koneridoss (hereinafter referred to as the revision petitioner) had already been added as the seventh respondent in the second appeal. The learned Judge in that order observed that as there is rival claim as to who is the legal representative of deceased Seethammal both of them would be treated as legal representatives for the purpose of the second appeal and that such order is without prejudice to the contentions of either of the parties. The learned Judge also directed that the question regarding, the genuineness of the will set up by the respondent herein is a matter to be agitated in separate proceedings.

2. After the disposal of the second appeal I.A. No. 115 of 1968 in O.S. No. 36 of 1963 came to be filed for passing a final decree. Then the respondent herein filed I.A. No. 282 of 1973, out of which the present revision petition arises, contending that by virtue of the will left by Seethammal, he is the legal representative entitled to continue the proceedings and that therefore he should be impleaded as the legal representative of Seethammal.

3. This application is under Order 22, rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure. The learned District Munsif on a consideration of the evidence placed before him held that the will propounded by the respondent is valid and that therefore he is the only legal representative of Seethammal and that the revision petitioner herein who claims to be the heir of Seethammal (husband’s sister’s son) is not the legal representative of Seethammal. It is this order that is questioned in the present revision petition.

4. Being a revision under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, it is not open to the revision petitioner to canvass the correctness or otherwise of the factual finding given by the learned District Munsif regarding the will. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that in view of the order passed by Ramanujam, J. in C.M.P. No. 14623 of 1970 in S.A. No. 935 of 1969, the revision petitioner and the respondent should be allowed to continue as the legal representatives of Seethammal even in subsequent proceedings (final decree proceedings) and that the Court below is wrong in entertaining an application under Order 22. rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the respondent herein. The learned Counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rangubai v. Sunderabai1It has been observed by the Supreme Court that if the legal representatives are brought on record at one st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document