Order on Board

19-01-2021 Heard.

1. The present petition has been brought under Article 227 Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2020, passed by the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Mungeli, C.G., in Civil Suit No.

S-103A/1997.

2. In Second Appeal No.417 of 2004, an application was moved for substitution of LRs of appellant under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C., in which the petitioner had claimed to be the legal heir of the deceased appellant- Luli Bai. A similar application was filed by the respondent and others claiming to be legal heirs of deceased respondent Son Bai on the basis of the will in their favour. The learned appellate Court passed order dated 05.04.2016, directing the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Mungeli to determine the issue under Order 22 Rule 5 of C.P.C. with respect to the legal representatives of the parties and send back the matter along with the report and findings to the Registry.

3. It was on the basis of this order, the proceeding was drawn by the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Mungeli. It has been held in the impugned order that the petitioner and respondent both have failed to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased parties in the Civil Suits/appeal.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only question that was present before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Mungeli to determine whether the petitioner and respondent, who are claiming to be legal representatives of the respective parties hold such status or not. There was no question for determining the legal heirs of the appellant and the respondent.

5. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) through Lrs. Vs. Satya Sai Central Trust and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 521, in which it was held that “The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. Such determination of such limited purpose will not confer on the person held to be the legal representative, any right to the property which is the subject-matter of the suit, vis-a-vis other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased.”

6. It is submitted that in view of this principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the learned Civil Judge- Class-I has traveled in a wrong direction seeking proof of will executed in favour of the parties, regarding which there was no challenge given by any other person interested, hence, the impugned order is erroneous and unsustainable.

7. The respondent is yet to be noticed.

8. Considered on the submissions, Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C. provides for the substitution of legal representative of a deceased plaintiff. Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. provides for substitution of legal representative of deceased defendant. Order 22 Rule 5 provides that when any question arises as to whether any person is or is not a legal representative of a deceased plaintiff/defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court. Legal representative has been defined in Section 2 (11) of C.P.C. according to which “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. The definition of legal representative has been given in a wide sense and that makes it clear that the legal representative may not be a legal heir of the deceased party. He can be a person who represents the estate of a deceased person or who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased person.

10.The Supreme Court has held in paragraph No.15 and 16 of the Judgment in Jaladi Sugna (Supra) as follows:-

15.Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does not amount to bringing the legal representa