Judgment :- 1. The suit properties belonged to deceased Meera Sahib Mohammed Kunju. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are his heirs. Plaintiff sued for partition of her 1/3 share. Preliminary decree for partition was passed and the matter is pending final decree. Defendants 4 to 16 were impleaded as alienees of some of the properties from the third defendant. Among them, 13th defendant was interested in items 12 and 13. Pending final decree he died. The suit was instituted on 29-8-1963 and preliminary decree was on 23-5-1967. Though 13th defendant died on 1-2-1980 impleading application was filed only on 27-8-1981 and that too without mentioning the date of death and unsupported by any application for condonation of delay or setting aside the abatement. Revision petitioners and 7th respondent were the persons sought to be impleaded. Even two years before suit in 1961 the 13th defendant transferred items 12 and 13 in their favour reserving only the right to take the usufructs. Without considering any of these objections including that of limitation the trial court ordered them to be impleaded. That is the order sought to be revised. 2. Revision petitioners and the 7th respondent impleaded as additional defendants 22 to 29 are the widow and children of deceased 13th defendant who had no other heirs. They contended that since 13th defendant parted with the properties in their favour even before the date of suit leaving no hereditable right with him at the time of his death they are not his legal representatives and themselves being owners of the properties not made parties to the suit the right of the plaintiff, if any, is only to proceed against them in a separate suit. Rejecting that contention the trial court held that the question of title to the property is immaterial and since they are persons entitled to represent the estate of the deceased, they are his legal representatives and the question relevant for. consideration is only whether they are the widow and children and as such his heirs. 3. Since at the time of arguments the revision petitioners only wanted modification of the order permitting them to agitate their independent claim over the properties, I am not considering the question of abatement or delay in filing the petition for impleading. The trial court seems to have lost sight of the distinction between legal heirs and legal representatives. 3. Since at the time of arguments the revision petitioners only wanted modification of the order permitting them to agitate their independent claim over the properties, I am not considering the question of abatement or delay in filing the petition for impleading. The trial court seems to have lost sight of the distinction between legal heirs and legal representatives. Legal heirs may be legal representatives but not always. Legal heirs are persons entitled to inherit the surviving estate of the deceased. Legal representatives as defined in S.2(11) of the CPC. are persons 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. Legal heirs always need not be legal representatives. On the death of a defendant or defendants the question of impleading legal representatives itself will arise under 0.22 R.4(1) only when the right to sue against him survives after his death. When a person is sued in his capacity as representing an estate and the claim in the suit as against him is only in relation to that estate, the persons who acquired independent title either from him or otherwise prior to the institution of the suit and not made parties to the suit cannot be brought on record as his legal representatives because their claim is independent and not under the deceased defendant. 4. The real question is whether the right to sue survives. If the deceased defendant had no right over the property against which relief is claimed and title was with his heirs or strangers even before suit, these persons cannot be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased because they are not persons representing the estate of the deceased. Even if they are legal heirs of the deceased they are persons getting the estate not under the deceased but on independent claim of their own and they are not persons representing the estate of the deceased. In such a case where the deceased defendant had no right over the estate sued, the right to sue does not survive and there is no question of any body being impleaded as his legal representative because no body could represent the estate under him. In such a case where the deceased defendant had no right over the estate sued, the right to sue does not survive and there is no question of any body being impleaded as his legal representative because no body could represent the estate under him. Under 0.24 R.2 a person impleaded as a legal representative of a deceased defendant could raise only contentions appropriate to his character as a legal representative. He could raise only contentions which the deceased could have raised. After being impleaded as a legal representative he can-not contend that the deceased defendant as whose legal representative he was impleaded, had no right over the property and that he is having independent title. That is because he is brought in only representing the estate of the deceased and not in his independent claim. Even a person sought to be impleaded as legal representative of a deceased defendant is his legal heir, if he raises an independent claim over the estate and says that he does not represent the estate of the deceased so far as that case is concerned, his independent claim will have to be considered before ordering him to be impleaded as a legal representative. Otherwise it will amount to denying him the right to raise his independent claim over the property for no fault of his. 5. So far as this case is concerned, whether the document claimed by additional defendants 22 to 29 is valid or not, they obtained the same from the deceased 13th defendant even before the date of suit. They are persons who ought to have been impleaded as defendants to the suit even when the suit was originally filed if the plaintiff wanted to challenge the document obtained by them. That omission cannot be allowed to be made good by the short cut back door method of bringing them on the party array as the legal representatives of a deceased defendant who had no right over the property when the suit was filed unless the document in favour of such persons is successfully challenged. Through such a dubious method the otherwise available contentions of such persons cannot be allowed to be foreclosed under the provisions of 0.22 R.4(2). 6. Basing on the decision reported in Dhool Chand v. Ganapat Lal (AIR. Through such a dubious method the otherwise available contentions of such persons cannot be allowed to be foreclosed under the provisions of 0.22 R.4(2). 6. Basing on the decision reported in Dhool Chand v. Ganapat Lal (AIR. 1957 Rajastan 283) it was argued for the respondents that the legal heirs of the deceased defendant could be impleaded as his legal representatives irrespective of the fact whether the deceased left any estate or not. Even if that decision said so on the facts of that case, with due respect I cannot agree to that propositions so far as the present case is concerned. Here representation of the estate of the deceased 13th defendant by somebody impleaded as legal representatives could be had only if he had any right to the estate and on his death the right to sue against him so far as that estate is concerned survived. Additional defendants who are claiming independent title on the basis of a document obtained before the date of suit cannot for the first time be impleaded as legal "representatives alone without affording them the right to claim their independent title. That decision only said that for the determination of the question whether a person is or is not a legal representative, it is not necessary to enquire immediately whether be left any estate and to what extent and it may only be the subject of a subsequent enquiry in determining the extent of the liability of the legal representative. 7. In order that one should be a legal representative he need not necessarily have a beneficial interest in the estate. Executors and Administrators are legal representatives though they have no beneficial interest. But even a trespasser into the property of the deceased defendant claiming independent title independent of the deceased defendant cannot be a legal representative as held in L. R. Gurbasappa v. Vankat (AIR 1956 TC 147) : (1955 KLT 739). Heirs on whom beneficial interest of the estate devolve under law on the death of the deceased defendant, whether statutorily or otherwise, will be legal representatives. Heirs on whom beneficial interest of the estate devolve under law on the death of the deceased defendant, whether statutorily or otherwise, will be legal representatives. When a defendant has transferred the estate involved in the suit intervivos even prior to the date of suit in favour of his heir or a stranger who is not a party to the suit, that heir or stranger cannot at any rate be brought on record after his death only as his legal representative, thereby denying him the chance to raise his independent claim. The laches on the part of the plaintiff to implead him when the suit was filed cannot be allowed to be over come by impleading him as a legal representative and shutting out his right to put forward his independent claim. 8. When such a person is for the first time brought on record after the institution of the suit and after the death of a defendant, so far as his independent right is concerned the suit could be deemed to have been instituted against him only on the date be was impleaded. He must have the right to assert his independent title and get an adjudication on it. So far as this case is concerned though the suit was instituted in 1963 the additional defendants were impleaded only in 1981 after the lapse Of 18 years. They are therefore entitled to plead their independent title to the property and need not confine their contentions as legal representatives of deceased 13th defendant. They can even plead limitations and adverse possessions also. The trial court acted with material irregularity in not reserving such rights with them. 9. The learned Munsiff is of the opinion that when a defendant dies and the question comes as to who are the legal representatives to be impleaded or whether any legal representative at all has to be impleaded, the only thing to be looked into is whether the persons sought to be impleaded are entitled to represent the estate of the deceased, if any, and not whether there is any estate at all to be represented or whether right to sue survives. In other words his opinion is that whenever a defendant dies it is a necessary formality to bring on record his legal heirs as legal representatives without considering whether there is any estate in the suit to be represented by the death of the deceased defendant or whether the suit survives. The view is evidently wrong. Representation is required only when the right to sue survives by survival of an estate represented by the deceased defendant during his life time in the suit and that estate is represented by the persons sought to be impleaded. The term legal representative of the estate of the deceased defendant itself is strictly a misnomer as the deceased cannot have any estate after his death since the estate will be that of the person on whom it devolves. The character of the legal representative must accrue after and on account of the death of the person whose estate is to be represented. Transferee may not be a legal representative because transfer is during the lifetime of the deceased defendant and the transferee acquires right even then and not on the death except in certain case. 10. When a defendant dies and if no legal representative is impleaded within time the result according to 0.22 R.4 (3) is that the suit as against the deceased defendant will abate in cases where the right to sue survives. As already stated by me the persons impleaded as legal representatives could raise only contentions which were available to the deceased defendant. In this case even items 12 and 13 were allowed to be partitioned by the preliminary decree with the deceased 13th defendant on the array of parties. If that decision is held binding on the additional defendants it will definitely work hardship on them. When they are entitled to raise their independent claims. necessarily the preliminary decree may have to be reopened if that course becomes necessary on their contentions based on independent title. The CRP is therefore partly allowed and the revision petitioners are permitted to raise their independent claim to items 12 and 13 including the plea of limitation and adverse possession. In other respects the CRP, is dismissed and parties will suffer costs.