Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 172 (KAR)

M. v. Rajashekar VS B. Sridhar

2002-02-28

A.M.FAROOQ

body2002
JUDGMENT A.M. Farooq, J.--This is an appeal filed by the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 292 of 1995 against the order passed by the lower Court on I.A.XVII in the suit allowing the application filed by the Respondents under Order 22, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure and praying to come on record as L. Rs.of the deceased Defendant No. 1 in the suit. 2. The Court below after hearing both the Plaintiff and the applicants in I.A.XVII passed the order allowing the application and permitting the applicants to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No. 1. 3. Sri Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contends before me that the Court below was wrong in allowing the applicants to be impleaded as the legal representatives of the first Defendant under Order 22, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure since no such impleading could be allowed without there being an enquiry and holding that the applicants are the L. Rs of the deceased Defendant No. 1. 4. On the other hand, Sri Mahantesh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that the applicants and the Plaintiff are parties in a suit before the Madras High Court where the applicants have filed a P and SC case and it has been converted into a suit where it has been stated by the impleading applicants that the deceased Defendant has executed a Will in their favour and hence, they have become the L. Rs.of the deceased Defendant No. 1 and therefore, they sought to be impleaded as L.Rs of the deceased Defendant as his L.Rs. 5. It is not disputed by Sri Narayana Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the applicants have filed a suit seeking probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by the Defendant No. 1 in their favour and the Plaintiffs are contesting the said suit before the Madras High Court. When such is the case, the applicants clearly come under the definition of Legal Representative as defined under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure which defines L.Rs. When such is the case, the applicants clearly come under the definition of Legal Representative as defined under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure which defines L.Rs. as follows: legal representative' to mean 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. Thus, any person which includes a person who intermeddles with the estate of a deceased party in a suit can be his legal representative for the purpose of continuation of the suit. The Court in such circumstances is not giving a finding as to whether the party who comes in the place of the deceased party is a heir who can claim rights of the estate of the deceased. It is only a summary decision given by the Court on the facts and circumstances of the case in order to continue the suit or proceedings. The Court can also hold enquiry in such circumstances if it feels it is necessary to do so. 6. But, in the present case, it is admitted by the Plaintiffs that the applicants in IA No. XVII have filed a suit before the Madras High Court seeking probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased first Defendant. That means, the applicants could atleast be called as intermeddlers with the property of the deceased. Therefore, I do not think that the Trial Court has committed any error in allowing I.A.XVII and treating the applicants as L. Rs.of the deceased. Whether they could be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased under Order 22, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure or under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure it does not make much difference since any party who wants to claim the property of the deceased has to produce other materials to claim the property or other assets of the deceased. Thus, I find that the trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the application and permitting the applicants to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased. It is only for the purpose of proceeding with the suit. 7. No ground to admit the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. 8. Thus, I find that the trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the application and permitting the applicants to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased. It is only for the purpose of proceeding with the suit. 7. No ground to admit the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. 8. I should not be understood to have opined anything as regards the validity of the Will set up by the impleaded applicants.