Inclusion of an universal legatee of a deceased party within the term legal representative.

C.M.P. No. 1065 is a petition for converting C.R.P. No. 1794 into a C.M.A. for reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the petition. The civil revision petition was filed in time and the requisite court-fee has been already paid. I therefore see no reason why this prayer for converting the C.R.P. into a C.M.A. should not be granted. I accordingly direct that the C.R.P. be converted into a C.M.A.

This civil miscellaneous appeal is brought from the decree and the judgment of the District Judge, Chingleput, in A.S. No. 97 of 1948 by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 226 of 1946. This litigation relates to a claim based on a promissory note executed by the third defendant in favour of the first defendant who assigned it to the second defendant. The third defendant executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 400 in favour of the first defendant who assigned it to the second defendant. On the foot of this promissory note a suit was instituted by the second defendant in the Court of Small Causes at Madras and a decree obtained. When the second defendant sought to execute his decree one Adi Ammal sister of the first defendant instituted O.S. No. 226 of 1946 for a declaration that she was entitled to the sum due under the promissory note executed by the third defendant in favour of the first defendant as the amount was advanced by the first defendant out of the funds belonging to her.

Pending this suit this Adi Ammal died and the respondent herein filed an application for being impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased plainitff alleging that under a will executed by his grandmother all the properties belonging to her, including the suit claim, were bequeathed to him and therefore he was entitled to represent the estate of the deceased plaintiff.

This application was opposed by the defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that a legatee under a will cannot be impleaded as a legal representative since it is only a heir-at-law that could represent the estate of the deceased plaintiff and not a legatee. The trial Court accepted the contention raised on behalf of the defendants and dismissed the suit relying on the decision in Kolaremathu Amma v. Madhavi1. On appeal by the aggrieved party the District Judge of Chingleput set aside the order observing that the definition of “legal representative” in section 2(11), Civil Procedure Code, is comprehensive enough to include a person “to whom the status of representative is fastened by reason of the death of a person whose estate they are entitled to represent” and directed the trial Court to enquire into the truth and genuineness of the will before the present respondent could come on record as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.

M. Krishnamachari, the learned counsel for the appellants, urged before me that a legatee cannot be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, having regard to the decisions relied on by him. His contention is that a legatee under a will has no locus standi to represent the estate of a deceased party and it is only a heir-at-law that could represent the estate of the deceased party. I will now refer to the provisions of section 2(11), Civil Procedure Code, which defines legal representative as:

“A person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.”

I have no hesitation in holding that the definition of “legal representative” includes a universal legatee as in this case. The section is wide enough to cover all cases of persons who represent the estate of a deceased person. It cannot be seriously contended that a universal legatee to whom the whole assets of the deceased party have been bequeathed does not represent the estate of that deceased