ORDER : Ramprasad, applicant, has filed this application to revise the order of the Civil Judge, second class, Mehagaon dated 5-2-1951. 2. Jamnaprasad and others filed a suit against Gayaram and Ramprasad for specific performance of a contract of sale. During the course of the proceedings, the court held that no decree for specific performance could be passed. The suit is, therefore, being prosecuted for the recovery of money. Gayaram died in July, 1949. On 30th September, 1949 the plaintiffs filed an application that Ramprasad be made a legal representative of the deceased Gayaram. The plaintiffs on 11-5-50 filed another application requesting the court to implead Badriprasad as legal representative of the deceased instead of Ramprasad. The court on 18-7-50 passed an order that it is not necessary to decide whether Ramprasad be impleaded as the legal representative of the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs have given him up. On 14-10-1950 the plaintiffs made another application requesting the court to implead Ramprasad as a legal representative of the deceased Gayaram. On this application, the court held that Ramprasad is an intermeddler of the property of the deceased and as such he is the legal representative of Gayaram. Against this order, Ramprasad has filed this revision. 3. The counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary objection to this revision, that as the order under revision is appealable this revision is not competent. Counsel for the opposite party could not substantiate the objection that the order under revision is appealable. It is not denied that the order is passed under Order 22, R. 4. Under Order 43, R. 1 an order passed under Order 22, R. 4 is not appealable. The objection therefore, has no force. 4. Turning now to the consideration of the point raised in this revision, it has to be determined whether Ramprasad can be impleaded as the legal representative of Gayaram on the ground that he intermeddled with the property of the deceased. The objection therefore, has no force. 4. Turning now to the consideration of the point raised in this revision, it has to be determined whether Ramprasad can be impleaded as the legal representative of Gayaram on the ground that he intermeddled with the property of the deceased. The expression 'legal representative has been defined in S. 2 (11) of the Civil Procedure Code, which runs as follows: "'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". The term 'intermeddle' has been used to mean an intermeddling with the assets of a deceased person in such a way as to denote an assumption of the authority, or an intention to exercise the functions of an executor or administrator. In other words, it has been used to mean what is known as an executor 'de son tort.' It is, therefore, essential in order to constitute a person an intermeddler, that there should be an intention on his part to act as a legal representative and to represent the estate of the deceased. A trespasser or a person who claims a title in himself adversely to the estate of the deceased cannot, therefore, be an intermeddler within the meaning of the definition. (Vide Civil Procedure Code by Chitaley Vol. 11 Edn V at Page 2670.) Executor 'de son tort' has been described in Wharton's Law Lexicon as follows : "If a stranger take upon himself to act as executor or administrator without any just authority, he is called in law an executor of his own wrong, 'de son tort', and is liable to the extent of the assets which have come to him and to all the trouble of an executorship without any of the profits or advantages". 5. This description of an intermeddler makes it quite clear that a person would not be an intermeddler unless he takes upon himself to act as an executor or administrator without any just authority. A person, therefore, must have an intention to act as a legal representative and to represent the estate of the deceased. 5. This description of an intermeddler makes it quite clear that a person would not be an intermeddler unless he takes upon himself to act as an executor or administrator without any just authority. A person, therefore, must have an intention to act as a legal representative and to represent the estate of the deceased. It is not alleged by the plaintiffs that Ramprasad intermeddled with the estate of the deceased after his death. No evidence has been adduced to show that Ramprasad has intermeddled with the estate of the deceased. The only ground on which the plaintiffs seek to implead Ramprasad is that in the lifetime of Gayaram, Ramprasad entered into a collusive transaction with Gayaram and obtaining a fraudulent decree purchased the property in a court sale. Even if these allegations be held to be true, they do not make Ramprasad an intermeddler. The property was purchased in a court sale during the lifetime of Gayaram. In 'CHOCKALINGAM v. KARUPPAN', AIR 1948 Mad 386, their Lordships of the Madras High Court observed as follows : "It is true that 'legal representative' includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of a deceased person. But assuming that the respondent is in possession of family assets in excess of his due share, such possession dates back to the ineffectual partition of 1926 long before Subramanian died, and cannot, therefore, amount to intermeddling with the estate of a deceased person": Vide AIR 1948 Mad 386, Para 6. The same reasoning applies to this case. If Ramprasad obtained any collusive decree he did so in the lifetime of Gayaram and the purchase at a court's sale also was made during the lifetime of Gayaram. This act of Ramprasad, therefore, does not amount to intermeddling with the estate of the deceased. Besides as already pointed out, no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs to show that Ramprasad had any intention to act as a legal representative and to represent the estate of the deceased. In these circumstances, the finding of the trial court that Ramprasad is an intermeddler is wrong in law. Other irregularities in the procedure followed by the trial court need not be commented upon as the order passed by the lower court must be set aside. 6. I, therefore, accept the application in revision and set aside the order of the lower court dated 5-2-51. Other irregularities in the procedure followed by the trial court need not be commented upon as the order passed by the lower court must be set aside. 6. I, therefore, accept the application in revision and set aside the order of the lower court dated 5-2-51. Applicant to get his costs of this revision from the opposite party. Revision allowed.