NASIRULLAH BEG, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision. It arises out of a suit filed by one Smt. Poona Devi, widow of one Chhabha Lal, for the recovery of Rs. 600/-; and, in the alternative, for the return of a gun. The gun in question is said to have been sold off by defendant No. 1 Sohan Lal, the pairokar of chhabha Lal, to defendant No. 2 Madan Singh. Smt. Poona Devi died during the pendency of the suit. An application was made by six persons to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased. The first four applicants claimed to be the daughters of Chhabha Lal deceased by his previous wife, the fifth applicant claimed to be the daughters daughter and the sixth applicant claimed to be the daughters son of Chhabba Lal deceased. All the applicants alleged themselves to be the children or descendants of Chhabba Lal deceased fey his previous wife. They also claimed to be the legal representatives in their capacity as legatees, as they alleged that Chhabba lal had executed a will in their favour.

( 2 ) THE trial court found that they were not the children or descendants of Chhabba Lal from his previous wife. They would not, therefore, be the heirs of Chhabba Lal, and, as such, could not be held to be the legal representatives in that capacity. It further found that they had failed to prove the genuineness of the will set up by them in their favour. They also, therefore could not claim to be the legal representatives of the deceased as legatee of Chhabba Lal. The trial court, however, relied on the admission made on behalf of the defendants to the effect that the applicants were residing in the house of Chhabba Lal, and were in possession of a part of the house of Chhabba lal. It, therefore, treated them as intermeddlers and impleaded them as the legal representatives of the deceased.

( 3 ) DISSATISFIED with said order, this revision has been filed by Sohan Lal and Madan Singh, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the case.

( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the applicants, I am of opinion that this application should be allowed.

( 5 ) THE term legal representative has been defined in Section 2, Sub-clause (11) of the Code of civil Procedure as follows: " legal representative means 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. " in the present case, the opposite parties have no doubt been intermeddling with the estate of the deceased. They should, therefore be considered to be intermeddlers. A person intermeddling with the estate of a deceased, however, should not be considered to represent the entire estate. The sphere of the representation of the estate of the deceased should be circumscribed by the sphere of the act of intermeddling done by him. In this case, it is admitted that they had intermeddled with the house of Chhabba Lal. It is, therefore, conceded that qua the house they should be deemed to be the representatives of the estate of the deceased Chhabba Lal. If, therefore, there was a dispute in respect of the house with which they had intermeddled, they could be brought on record as legal representatives in respect of that part of the estate. If, however, the dispute relates to a property in which they had not intermeddled, they cannot be considered to be his legal representatives in respect of that item of property. This view of law would find; support from the observations made in Lalsa Rai v. Udit Rai, AIR 1924 All 717 and firm Balkishan v. Jatnabai, AIR 1938 Nag 298. In AIR 1924 All 717, it was held that when a person intermeddles with the estate of the deceased he is a legal representative of the deceased for the purpose of procedure to the extent of the property with which he had intermeddled, but there is no principle of law which makes him the representative of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document