The definition of 'legal representative' includes individuals who intermeddle with a deceased estate, allowing substitution without probate under certain conditions.

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Vimal Patel waives service of notice of rule for the respondent.

2. In the petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.4.2019 passed by the learned 7th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below Exh.173 in CMA No.10 of 1994.

3. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit had filed an application being CMA No.10 of 1994 before the Civil Court, Rajkot seeking relief of obtaining letter of administration with the will annexed dated 27.12.1990 stated to have been executed by late Jayagauri Khushalchand Mehta. Pendente lite, Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit expired, but prior to that, she had executed a will dated 22.8.2014, in favour of the respondent. Alike codicil was also executed on 9.9.2014. Since during the pendency of CMA No.10 of 1994, the petitioner has expired, the respondent claims that he is the legal representative of the deceased Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit and thus, he has to be joined in place of deceased Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit. Therefore, he preferred an application Exh.173 in CMA No.10 of 1994. The learned court below allowed the application inter alia on the ground that prima facie, the respondent proved that he is inheriting legal estate of the deceased and falls within the definition of legal representative as the deceased Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit had executed a will and codicil in favour of the respondent. The findings and reasoning have weighed the court below to grant application below Exh.173 to substitute the respondent as legal representative of deceased Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit in CMA No. 10 of 1994. Being aggrieved, the present petition.

4. Some other facts, which are necessary for the decision that deceased Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit was daughter of deceased Jayagauri Khushalchand Mehta and deceased Khushalchand Kalidas Mehta. She was the only child of deceased Jayagauri and therefore she was universal legatee. Deceased Jayagauri had executed a registered will dated 27.12.1990 bequeathing her all movable and immovable properties in favour of deceased Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit.

5. Matrimonial discord had taken place between Jayagauri Mehta and deceased Khushalchand Kalidas Mehta. Deceased Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit was the only child begotten by them from their marriage. According to the will of deceased Jayagauri Khushalchand Mehta, her husband Khushalchand Kalidas Mehta had contracted a second marriage, but the properties which are bequeathed in her will dated 27.12.1990 is exclusively belonged to her.

6. When deceased Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit filed CMA No.10 of 1994 before the court below seeking letter of administration with the will annexed. This application was objected by the present petitioner being son of deceased Khushalchand Kalidas Mehta born out of his second marriage. In the CMA, as it has become contested, the issues were framed at Exh.40. Subsequently, Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit died on 2.2.2015, leaving behind a registered will dated 22.8.2014 and codicil dated 9.9.2014 bequeathing the movable and immovable properties, she was expecting to receive from the will of late Jayagauri in favour of the respondent. In view of such bequeath, the respondent moved an application Exh.173 to substitute him in place of deceased Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit and to permit him to produce the evidence for proving the will of deceased Jayagauri Mehta inter alia on the gro