Back
1992 Supreme(MP) 690
Dr.T. N. Singh and K. M. Pandey, JJ.
Shakuntla (Mst.) v. Shatrughan
M.P. No. 579 of 1991 (G); Decided or 21.10.1992.
K.K. Lahoti for petitioners; R.D. Jain for respondents.
Headnote:Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.22, R.3 -- plaintiff died -- holder of will may be substituted in his place -- he represents estate of the deceased -- no further enquiry is necessary.
flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 22] fu- 3 && oknh e`r && foy /kkjd mlds LFkku ij izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk ldrk gS && e`rd dh laink dk izfrfuf/kRo djus ds fy, && vkSj tk¡p vko‘;d ugha gSA
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
-
The case involves the substitution of the plaintiff who had died, with the court recognizing that the holder of the will may be substituted in their place, representing the estate of the deceased without requiring further inquiry (!) (!) .
-
The trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction by allowing substitution based on the will, even though it was not probated, since the property devolved on the applicants under the will and they represented the estate of the deceased (!) .
-
The primary issue in substitution is the proper representation of the estate of the deceased, which is determined by whether the person claiming to represent the estate is legally entitled to do so, rather than conducting a detailed enquiry into the validity of the will or other matters (!) .
-
The revisional court's view that an enquiry was necessary into the proper representation was deemed unnecessary and was set aside, affirming the trial court's order of substitution (!) .
-
The order of substitution passed by the trial court is maintained, and the petition for early hearing was allowed, leading to the final disposal of the case (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the question of substitution is limited to proper representation of the estate,
I.A.V. is for early hearing. That is allowed. Hearing taken up and the petition is disposed of finally in terms of a short order herein made.
The impugned order is Annexure P-1. That order has set aside the order passed by the trial Court, Annexure P-2, by which the impleadment of the petitioners as plaintiffs in place of deceased Phoola was allowed. By the impugned order in revision learned Addl. District Judge took the view that the enquiry was necessary to determine the question of proper representation of the deceased plaintiff and for proper legal representative to be brought on record.
On basis of a will which deceased Phoola had executed in favour of the petitioners, who have been under the trial Court's Order duly substituted, prayer was made for substitution. That prayer was duly allowed and substitution made. We do not think if the trial Court erroneously exercised its jurisdiction in doing so because the question is of due representation of the estate of the deceased the term 'Legal representative' is defined in section 2 (11) CPC to mean "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 ". It is not disputed that the will was not probated. At the same time it is submitted that the property devolved on the applicants under the will and therefore right could be claimed in respect of the suit property by the plaintiffs-petitioners who represented the estate of deceased including the suit property. This Court has constantly held that when the question is of substitution the only question to be decided is proper representation of the estate and nothing else is to be decided. The trial Court having taken the view that in terms of the will the petitioner could be impleaded in place of deceased Phoola because they represented the estate of the deceased nothing wrong was done. It was never the case of the defendants, herein respondents, that there was any other legal representative of deceased Phoola. Indeed it is for that reason that we failed to understand why revisional Court took the view that the question was required to be enquired into by that unnecessary burden was saddled on the plaintiffs- petitioners.
For all the aforesaid reasons the order passed in revision by the Court below, Annexure P-l, is set aside. The order of substitution of the legal representatives passed by the trial Court is maintained. The petition is allowed.
