JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a defendant's revision application under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 19-9-1973 passed by the Learned Second Additional District Judge, Kanpur. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision application are that on 23-5-1971 Bishamblar Nath Tandon filed a suit for ejectment and for the recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant-revisionist. On 10-12-1970 while the suit was still pending Bishambhar Nath died leaving behind four legal heirs viz., Smt. Saroj Kumar his daughter and Smt. Kando Devi his mother. On 15-3-1971 his widow Smt. Munni Devi made an application for her substitution in place of her husband. She gave out that she was sole heir to the deceased's property inasmuch as the deceased had given it to her by means of an unregistered will. The application was opposed by the defendant-revisionist on the ground that all the four legal heirs of the deceased should be substituted. Thereupon the learned Munsif directed that notices of substitution application be issued to the other heirs also. On 1-4-1972 Smt. Saroj Kumari, daughter of the deceased, filed an objection that Mnnni Devi alone was not entitled to be substituted. Later on she did not press her objections. Gopinath also filed an application stating that he had no objection to the substitution of his mother as a legal representative of his father. Service of notice was duly effected on Smt. Kando Bibi but she did not appear to file any objection. Therefore, the Learned Munsif allowed the substitution application on 9-9-1972. Against this order the defendant filed a revision application before the learned District Judge Kanpur, which was heard and decided by the Learned Second Additional District Judge, Kanpur on 19-9-1973. The only point pressed before him was that the house in question was joint family property and Bishambhar Nath was not competent to execute a will in respect of the whole house. He could do so only in respect of his share. The only point pressed before him was that the house in question was joint family property and Bishambhar Nath was not competent to execute a will in respect of the whole house. He could do so only in respect of his share. The learned revision Ist court rejected this contention on the ground that a legatee who obtains even a part of the estate of the deceased under a will represents his estate and is, therefore, his legal representative within the meaning of section 2(ii) C.P.C. In support of this, view reliance was placed on the case of Andhra Bank Limited v. Srinivasan, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 232 and others. It further held that the Learned Munsif did not commit any error of jurisdiction nor he committed any illegality or material irregularity affecting his jurisdiction and on this ground also the revision application was legally not maintainable. Accordingly the revision was dismissed with costs and the defendant has now come up in revision to this court. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. It is needless to say that the jurisdiction of the revisional court is limited by the provisions of section 115 Civil Procedure Code. As held in the case of the Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 76, High Court should not interfere even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not. While exercising the jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. It is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless they have relation to the jurisdiction. In the instant case no such error is apparent from the record. Bishambhar Nath deceased had no doubt left four heirs but his widow claimed to be legal representative on the basis of unregistered will. The other heirs had no objection to her substitution. In these circumstances there is no reason why she alone should not have been substituted as intermeddler with the deceased's property. I quite agree with the view taken by the Learned Second Additional District Judge that even a legatee of part of the property of the deceased represents his estate and is legal representative of the deceased within the meaning of this expression. I quite agree with the view taken by the Learned Second Additional District Judge that even a legatee of part of the property of the deceased represents his estate and is legal representative of the deceased within the meaning of this expression. Therefore, the orders of the Learned Munsif and the Second Additional District Judge do not suffer from any jurisdictional error which may justify interference in revision. 4. The revision application is accordingly dismissed with costs to the opposite party.