Substitution of legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC is for the limited purpose of representing the deceased's estate to continue proceedings; it does not adjudicate title or exclusive inheritance, particularly when the estate is already sufficiently represented by all legal heirs.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN RA NO.10066/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI TO SIT AT ATHANI, VIDE ANNEXURE - A RESPECTIVELY. II. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN RA NO.10066/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI TO SIT AT ATHANI, VIDE ANNEXURE - B RESPECTIVELY. III. ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION WHICH THIS HON’BLE DEEMS FIT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.2 in RA No.10066/2024 dated 19.01.2026 by the XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Athani, the defendant Nos. 4, 6 and 7 are before this Court.

Respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit for partition. In that, the siblings, father and mother were arrayed as defendants. The said suit came to be dismissed. Against that, RA No.10066/2024 is filed. According to the petitioners, defendant No.2/mother had executed a Will dated 30.10.1996 bequeathing the properties to the petitioners and defendant No.5. During the pendency of the appeal, the mother died on 12.02.2024. Then, a memo was filed to treat defendants No.3 to 8 as legal representatives of the deceased Basavva. Accordingly, the said memo was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed IA No.2 to recall the order passed on the memo treating the defendants as LRs of deceased Basavva and also IA No.3 was filed to treat these petitioners as LRs, who are representing the estate of the deceased Basavva. The said application came to be dismissed by the appellate Court. While dismissing the application, the appellate Court has observed that, according to defendant No.5, the deceased Basavva had cancelled the earlier Will dated 30.10.1996 on 15.02.2020 and thereafter, she had executed a Will dated 05.03.2020 in favour of defendant No.5. In respect of RS No.1238/2A/1, measuring 1 acre 19 guntas, based on the Will dated 05.03.2020 and according to defendant No.5, he is the owner and in possession of the property bearing RS No.1238/2A/1 to the extent of 1 acre 19 guntas. Considering all these facts, the appellate Court observed that IA is not maintainable and accordingly, the appellate Court had refused to recall the order passed on IA No.2 and dismissed IA No.3 that is filed by the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the mother had executed a Will in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 7. The petitioners before this Court are defendant No.4, 6 and 7. According to defendant No.5, the Will dated 30.10.1996 is cancelled and another Will is executed in the year 2020 and he is in possession of the property. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as contemplated under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC, the appellate Court is bound to conduct a summary enquiry and decide, who are the legal heirs representing the estate of the deceased in the light of the Will executed by the mother. It is submitted that, without conducting any enquiry, the appellate Court dismissed the application. It is submitted that who has to succeed to the property of the deceased based on the Will, has to be decided by filing a separate suit by defendant Nos.4, 6 and 7 and defendant No.5. This aspect will not be decided in this suit. He has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) Through Lrs. Vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan and Others¹2024 SCC Online SC 683 wherein paragraph-10 reads thus:

“ 10. The only purpose of substitution is the continuation of the case. The substitution as LR in a case by itself will not give any title in favour of the person so sub