Legal Heir With a Will Represents Entire Estate for Substitution Under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, Even if Other Heirs Exist: Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-03

MP High Court Overturns Trial Court Order, Rules Will-Holder Can Be Substituted as Plaintiff

Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh – In a significant ruling on civil procedure, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a trial court's order that denied the substitution of a deceased plaintiff's son, who was a beneficiary under a will. Justice Hirdesh, presiding at the Gwalior bench, held that a legal representative with a will represents the entire estate of the deceased and can be brought on record, even if other heirs are not party to the application, provided there is no allegation of fraud or collusion.

The Court also took the extraordinary step of recommending judicial training for the trial court judge, citing a "lack of basic knowledge of law."

Background of the Case

The matter originated from a civil suit (RCSA No. 233 of 2021) filed by Munni Devi for the partition of ancestral agricultural land in Gwalior, in which she claimed a one-third share. During the proceedings, Munni Devi passed away on May 12, 2024. Prior to her death, she had executed a will on May 4, 2024, bequeathing her property to her husband and children.

Following her demise, her son, Pawan Pathak, filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to be substituted as the plaintiff. He contended that his mother had willed her one-third share in the disputed property to him, and therefore, the "right to sue" survived in his favour.

However, the 6th Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Gwalior, rejected his application on January 8, 2025. The trial court reasoned that since the will mentioned other legal heirs besides the petitioner, his application was incomplete for not including them. Pathak then challenged this order before the High Court.

High Court's Legal Analysis and Precedents

Justice Hirdesh found the trial court's reasoning to be fundamentally flawed and contrary to established legal principles. The petitioner argued that as a Class-I heir and beneficiary of the will, he was entitled to continue the suit.

The High Court heavily relied on two pivotal judgments to guide its decision: 1. Shakuntla (Ms) vs. Shaturghan (1993): A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had previously held that a will holder can be substituted as they represent the deceased's estate. The court had emphasized the broad definition of a "legal representative" under Section 2(11) of the CPC, which includes anyone who legally represents or intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. 2. Dolai Molliko vs. Krushna Chandra Patnaik (1967): The Supreme Court of India observed that unless there is fraud, collusion, or other circumstances indicating an unfair trial, an heir who applies to be brought on record can represent the entire estate, even if other heirs are inadvertently omitted.

Applying these principles, Justice Hirdesh noted that the respondents in the case had not alleged any fraud or collusion concerning the will executed by Munni Devi.

Court's Pivotal Observations

In a key excerpt from the judgment, the court stated:

"In view of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court... the defendants therein/respondents have not stated that the 'Will' was executed by means of fraud or collusion. So, on the basis of 'Will' executed by deceased-plaintiff, the name of petitioner shall be substituted in place of deceased plaintiff. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application of petitioner..."

Final Decision and Rebuke to Trial Judge

The High Court allowed Pawan Pathak's petition, setting aside the trial court's "erroneous" order. It directed the trial court to implead Pathak as the plaintiff and proceed with the suit in accordance with the law.

Furthermore, Justice Hirdesh sharply criticized the procedural handling by the trial court judge, Ms. Varsha Bhalavi. The High Court observed that after rejecting the substitution application, the trial court left the suit without a plaintiff but illogically posted the case for "plaintiff's evidence." The correct procedure would have been to dismiss the suit as abated.

Citing this, the judgment concluded:

"It is crystal clear that the Presiding Officer of Trial Court, namely, Ms.Varsha Bhalavi has no basic knowledge of law and she needs training in JOTRI [Judicial Officers' Training and Research Institute] regarding procedural law."

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the District Judge, the Director of JOTRI, and the Registrar General of the High Court for necessary action.