Judgment :- 1. The short facts relating to the appeal and the Civil Revision Petition are as follows: One Swarnalinga Chettiar died on 9th February, 1958 leaving behind two widows, Rukmani and Pattammal. Rukmani filed O.S. 47 of 1960 on the rite of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput for recovery of certain sums due from Pattammal, the junior widow and the adopted son by name Ranganathan. Pattammal filed O.S. No. 86 of 1960 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, (originally filed before the District Munsif Court, Conjeevaram, but later on transferred), for partition of her 1/4th share in the properties left by her husband. This suit was directed against the adopted son and the senior widow Rukmani. Both these matters were jointly tried and ultimately O.S. 47 of 1960 was dismissed and thereafter it was not further prosecuted. Therefore, it had become final. O.S. 86 of 1960 ended in a decree and an appeal preferred against the same also suffered a similar fate. Thereupon S.A. No. 1449 of 1965 was preferred to this court, and Ramaaujam, J. allowed the appeal and remanded the second appeal for fresh disposal to the lower appellate court. Rukmani died when the matter was pending before the District Court, Chingleput. This being so, an execution petition was taken out for recovery of costs in O.S. No. 47 of 1960 wherein 1/4th share of Rukmani was attached in E.P. 37 of 1965, and E.A. 523 of 1965, was filed by the present appellant in the second appeal who claimed to be the legal representative by virtue of a settlement executed by Rukmani in his favour as early as on 12th January, 1959. In that application he prayed for the relief of attachment. This E.A. was dismissed by an order of the learned Judge on 15th March, 1966. Thereupon, after remand, in as much as Rukmani died as noted above, he filed I.A. 515 of 1970 under O. 22, Rr. 3 and 11, C.P.C. to implead himself as the legal representative of Rukmani Ammal and seeking to bring himself on record as the second appellant. Thereupon, after remand, in as much as Rukmani died as noted above, he filed I.A. 515 of 1970 under O. 22, Rr. 3 and 11, C.P.C. to implead himself as the legal representative of Rukmani Ammal and seeking to bring himself on record as the second appellant. The learned District Judge held that there was absolutely lack of bona fides on the part of the present appellant, that he did not even choose to mention even the existence of a settlement deed executed by Rukmani Ammal in the earlier stages, that the appellant not merely did stand by to watch Rukmani Ammal fight out both the cases, but had actively supported her and got into the witness box to swear in support of her case. The learned Judge held that in these circumstances the settlement deed in favour of some ulterior motive and dismissed the application. The appeal itself was dismissed observing as follows: “L.R. application dismissed. Appeal abates”. The second appeal is directed against the dismissal of the appeal A.S. 290 of 1964 and the civil revision petition is directed against the dismissal of I.A. 515 of 1970. 2. Mr. S.A. Seshadri Aiyangar, learned counsel for the appellant strenuouly contends before me that the reasoning of the lower appellate court is thoroughly wrong and could not be sustained, since it is imperative on the part of the court to have taken evidence to decide whether the appellant herein was the legal representative or not, and the application and the appeal ought not to have been dismissed in this summary fashion. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in Nagappa v. Karuppiah 1975 Mad. 456. Mr. V. Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondents states that having regard to the conduct of the appellant he should not be allowed to get impleaded as the legal representative at this belated stage. On a careful consideration of the respective submissions of the counsel, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to succeed since there was no necessity at all at any stage for the appellant to get himself impleaded as the legal representative, nor can it be said that merely because he stood by and watched the proceedings or even actively supported Rukmani Ammal, the settlor, his right to be added as the legal representative would in any way be defeated. Certainly, the first respondent in the second appeal, Pattammal, took a risk in impleading only Rukmani Ammal. Ultimately, if the present appellant had not chosen to get himself impleaded, it would have been easy for him to contend that the judgment is not binding on him. But on the contrary, here is a person who is willing and eager to come forward and get himself impleaded as a legal representative on the strength of the settlement deed which makes the work of the first respondent easy. From this point of view, the motive with regard to the execution of the settlement is wholly irrelevant. In addition to this, I find that the reliance placed on the decision in Nagappa v. Karuppiah 1975 Mad. 456 is fully justified wherein it has been held as follows— “Under Order 22, rule 5, where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the court, and for that purpose, the court must take evidence and then decide for itself, who has got the better claim, If the court fails to follow this procedure, the High Court will interfere in revision.” Consequently, I direct that the appellant be impleaded as legal representative of the deceased Rukmani Ammal and he be brought on record as such. The second appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded for fresh hearing on merits by the learned District Judge of Chingleput. In view of the above, the civil revision petition is also allowed. In view of the fact that the matter is pending for a long time, I direct the District Judge of Chingleput to dispose of Appeal No. 290 of 1964 on or before 30th April 1975. There will be no order as to costs either in the second appeal or in the civil revision petition. The court fee paid by the appellant on the memorandum of grounds in the second appeal will be refunded to him. No leave.