Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. The present two revision applications are directed against the order of the trial Court by which the trial Court has refused to recall the order substituting the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in place of plaintiff Hari Singh and further refused to substitute the intervenor-defendant, petitioner before this Court, who happens to be the lawfully wedded wife of late Hari Singh. Facts for the relevant purpose have fortunately been settled by this Court on earlier occasion. The deceased-plaintiff (Hari Singh) had earlier initiated a divorce proceeding against his wife Smt. Ganesh Kumari Devi, the present petitioner. The petitioner was rejected by the District Judge, Patna and the said order was not interfered by this Court in FA No. 108 of 1983, which was dismissed on 16th May, 1985. In the said First Appeal, apart from the fact that relationship of husband and wife stood admitted, it was found that one Sarojni Devi (Opposite Party No. 1 in these revision applications) was nothing but a concubine of Hari Singh and the proceedings were terminated. The present petitioner came to know that her husband had tried to manipulate the records of Kankarbagh Peoples Co-operative Housing Construction Society in order to deprive her of Legitimate right, title and interest in the land in question, which stood in her name and on which the disputed premises stands. She accordingly filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 115 of 1981, which was ultimately decreed on 22-12-1992 holding that the petitioner and her husband both had right in the said property. Both the parties preferred appeals before the appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and allowed the appeal of the wife (petitioner) by judgment and order dated 4-10-1997. The effect of the said judgment was that the wife (petitioner) was declared to be the sole owner of the property in question. The husband being dissatisfied preferred two second appeals before this Court, first being aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal and second being aggrieved by allowing the appeal of the wife. Both the appeals were taken up together and dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 17-9-1999 passed in Second Appeal Nos. The husband being dissatisfied preferred two second appeals before this Court, first being aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal and second being aggrieved by allowing the appeal of the wife. Both the appeals were taken up together and dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 17-9-1999 passed in Second Appeal Nos. 297 and 319 of 1997 clearly noticing and affirming that the petitioner (wife) Smt. Ganesh Kumari Devi was the real owner of the suit property and not name-lender of any sort. It was also noticed that her husband had been convicted on a complaint by the wife u/s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code for manipulating the records of Kankarbagh Peoples Co-operative Housing Construction Society. Apparently as no sentence was awarded in spite of conviction no appeal was preferred and the conviction attained finality. 2. In view of the above two sets of decisions by this Court, the following facts are established: (i) Ganesh Kumari Devi is the lawfully wedded wife of Hari Singh. (ii) Genesh Kumari Devi was the owner of the property is question being her personal property. (iii) Smt. Sarojni Devi was concubine of Hari Singh. 3. It appears that two suits for eviction were filed by the said Hari Singh in respect of this property in the year 1995 claiming himself to be the "landlord" for eviction of his tenants. As noticed above in 1995 as per judgment in T.S. No. 115 of 1981 dated 22-12-1992 it had been held that Hari Singh and Ganesh Kumari Devi both had legitimate right, therefore, the suit appears to have been instituted by Hari Singh as the expression landlord under the provision of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act has an extensive meaning which includes representative of the landlord. In the said proceeding, as pointed out by Sri Parmeshwar Prasad learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party Smt. Sarojni Devi, the present opposite party No. 1 filed a petition to be added as intervenor-defendant on the ground that she was true owner. She admitted that Hari Singh had initiated a proceeding in the legitimate capacity as her representative having authority to collect rent. She did not and could not admit Hari Singh to be personally interested in property, in question, in any manner. This was allowed. She was added as intervenor-defendant in the two eviction suits. She admitted that Hari Singh had initiated a proceeding in the legitimate capacity as her representative having authority to collect rent. She did not and could not admit Hari Singh to be personally interested in property, in question, in any manner. This was allowed. She was added as intervenor-defendant in the two eviction suits. When Hari Singh died and the Court not having been posted with the two judgments of this Court aforesaid Sarojni Devi (concubine of Hari Singh) and her two minor sons were permitted to be substituted as heirs of Hari Singh. On coming to know of this wrong and illegal substitution the present petitioner filed an application for recall of that order and consequently substituting her as the plaintiff being the landlord. This has been erroneously rejected by the trial Court in both the cases. 4. I am afraid that the trial Court has acted wholly without jurisdiction in substituting the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in place of Hari Singh. 5. Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that status of the petitioner is no more in dispute. She is the real owner and true "Landlord" of the premises in question. The premises is her personal property. Hari Singh was suing on her behalf. He had no interest in the property otherwise. Therefore, after the death of Hari Singh either any nominee of the petitioner or she herself could have been substituted. Substitution of opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. On the other hand, Sri Parmeshwar Prasad appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has submitted that it is well settled that when a person dies his legal representatives have to be substituted as distinguished from legal heirs and as such illegitimate son of Male Hindu does fall within the meaning of legal representative has rightly been substituted. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at length I am of the view that these revision applications must succeed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside as being wholly without jurisdiction. It is not in dispute nor can it be disputed that the property in question was the property of the petitioner. Hari Singh had no interest in the suit property. It is not in dispute nor can it be disputed that the property in question was the property of the petitioner. Hari Singh had no interest in the suit property. He was merely an authorised agent to use the premises to institute the proceeding and to evict the tenants on behalf of the petitioner. On his death the relationship/authority ceased. There was no question of substitution as he had no personal right. The right, if any, was solely of the petitioner. 8. In view of the judgment of this Court in earlier two proceedings only she had allowed Hari Singh to maintain the suit and as such she was right in moving the Court for her substitution in place of Hari Singh and opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not to be substituted. 9. The contention of Mr. Prasad could have been accepted if Hari Singh had a personal interest in the property independent of the petitioner. Law does confer the legitimate right on illegitimate son of a Male Hindu only in relation to personal property of the said Male Hindu. Here there was no personal property rather Male Hindu has acted as delegatee of his wife and in case of his death wife could be substituted and not other illegitimate son or the concubine as the property was that of the wife in personal capacity. 10. For the reasons these revision applications are allowed. The impugned order is set aside, the trial Court is directed to substitute only the petitioner in place of Hari Singh and expunged the name of others from the list of the petitioner. 11. I order accordingly with cost of Rs. 1000.00 (one thousand) each.