Legal representatives may include individuals with a claim to the estate, not just direct heirs; validity of settlement deeds necessitates involvement and confirmation from all potential heirs.

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI,J.)

This Review Application has been filed seeking to review the order dated 17.10.2023 in CMP (MD) No.12715 of 2023 in AS (MD). No.56 of

2010

2. We have heard Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan, learned counsel for the Review Applicants and Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8. Both learned counsel appeared virtually before us.

3. The grievance of the Review Applicant is that the Appeal itself had been filed challenging the compromise decree passed in the suit, in and where by, 'A' schedule property was allotted to the deceased first respondent, Ramachandran, 'B' schedule property was allotted to the appellants and 'C' schedule property was allotted to the deceased 2nd respondent, Kothai Ammal.

4. According to the learned counsel for the Review Applicants, the settlement reached between the parties was impermissible, since the validity of the compromise decree in OS. No.437 of 2004 was the main ground of challenge in the First Appeal. He would submit that the Appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2010 was not against the preliminary decree in OS. No. 437 of 2004 but only against the compromise decree. According to the learned counsel for the Review Applicant, the Appeal itself had abated in view of the death of the Kothai Ammal.

5. Per contra, Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8 would submit that the Review Applicants have not impleaded the daughters of Kothai Ammal and they only claim under settlement deeds, said to have been executed by the said Kothai Ammal in their favour. He would further submit that the Applicants already attempted to implead themselves as the legal representatives of the deceased Ramachandran and the said Application was unsuccessful and even a Review filed was negatived. He would therefore submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the order.

6. We have paid our anxious consideration to the rival submissions putforth by the learned counsel on either side.

7. No doubt, the Applicants sought to implead themselves as Legal Representatives of deceased Ramachandran and an attempt to implead the Applicants earlier was unsuccessful. However, at that time the Applicants failed to project that they were also legal representatives of Kothai Ammal, who had executed settlement deeds in their favour.

8. Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines legal representative, for the purposes of the Court, the same is extracted for easy reference:-

“2(11) “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;”

9. Thus, it is clear that even a person who succeeds to the interest of the deceased person falls within the ambit of the legal heirs and he or she need not be a legal heir to claim impleadment. However, at the same time it is to be seen that the settlement deed has to be proved in the presence of the legal heirs, who but for the said settlement deeds, would be entitled to the estate of Kothai Ammal.

10. Admittedly, the three daughters of Kothai Ammal are not alive as on date. However both the learned counsel fairly conceded that the said daughters have children who are not parties before this Court. Therefore, even if the Applicants seek to implead themselves as legal representatives claiming under the settlement deeds executed by Kothai Ammal, it is incumbent for them, first and foremost, to establish the settlement deeds, the truth and genuineness and validity of the same, in the presence of the legal heirs who would be entitled to the subject property in the absence of the settlement deeds.

11. Today, the grandchildren of the Kothai Ammal are very much alive. Further, it is seen that even though the Appeal was preferred challenging the compromise decree in the suit, now the A