JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:- This application, under Order 22 Rule 4, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading the legal representative of Savitri, deceased/respondent No. 1, has been filed by Vikas Kaushik, applicant, on the averments that, she being his real grand-mother, executed a registered will dated 11.11.08, copy whereof is R1/1, in his favour, regarding the property, in dispute. It was stated that after the death of Savitri, respondent No. 1, he became her legal representative, to represent her estate. 2. Though, notice of this application, was given to the Counsel for the appellant/applicant, and the other respondents, but no reply, was filed, yet the same, was contested, by them. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the applicant, submitted that, on the basis of registered Will, copy whereof, is R1/1, which was executed, in his favour, the applicant, being the legal representative of deceased Savitri Devi, is entitled to represent her estate. He further submitted that, at this stage, the Court, is only required to prima-facie satisfy itself, as to whether, on the basis of a document produced, the applicant, could be made a party, to represent the estate of Savitri Devi and no inquiry by recording evidence, should be made, as that would amount to subjecting the party to dual trial. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the appellant, submitted that Savitri Devi, was only the owner, to the extent of 1/6 share in the property, in dispute, and, as such, was not competent, to execute the Will, beyond that share. She further submitted that the Will, allegedly executed, in respect of the entire property by Savitri, in favour of the applicant, is illegal. She further submitted that the appellant, has no objection, in case, the applicant, is made a party, just to represent the estate of Savitri Devi, but this order, would not create any right, in him, in the property, in dispute, as the validity and legality of the Will, could be proved, in the appropriate form. 6. She further submitted that the appellant, has no objection, in case, the applicant, is made a party, just to represent the estate of Savitri Devi, but this order, would not create any right, in him, in the property, in dispute, as the validity and legality of the Will, could be proved, in the appropriate form. 6. The Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3, however, submitted that, according to Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when there is a dispute, as to whether, a particular person, is the legal heir of the deceased, or not, an inquiry, is required to be made, and only then, a conclusion, can be arrived at, as to whether, he is the legal heir of the deceased. They further submitted that the case may be remitted back to the trial Court, for holding inquiry, as to whether, the applicant, is the legal heir of the deceased, or not. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the application, deserves to be allowed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. According to Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, ‘legal representative’ means a person, who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased person, 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. The applicant, can only be made a party, on the basis of the registered Will, copy whereof, is R1/1, to represent the estate of the deceased person, or as an intermeddler. From the copy of the Will, this Court, is satisfied, that the applicant, is a necessary party to represent the estate of Savitri, in these proceedings. The legality and validity of the Will may be got decided by the applicant, in an appropriate forum. In these circumstances, no inquiry, is essential, in the matter, at this stage. The application, deserves to be allowed. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the application is allowed. Vikas Kaushik, applicant, is impleaded as a respondent, in this appeal. The legality and validity of the Will may be got decided by the applicant, in an appropriate forum. In these circumstances, no inquiry, is essential, in the matter, at this stage. The application, deserves to be allowed. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the application is allowed. Vikas Kaushik, applicant, is impleaded as a respondent, in this appeal. However, it is made clear, that this order, shall not confer any right, or title on the applicant, in so far as the property, in dispute, is concerned. The Registry, is directed to make necessary incorporation, wherever needed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. ----------