JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri Kunal Ravi Singh and Shri Sharad Malviya, the learned counsel for respondent. 2. The plaintiff Smt. Rambachchi Devi instituted a suit for maintenance and partition in respect of certain movable and immovable properties against the defendants, who were the children of her husband from the first wife. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 was not maintaining her, and therefore, the suit was instituted for the reliefs claimed by her. The defendants contested the claim and submitted that the plaintiff had only a limited right under a Will dated 15th May, 1967 executed by the husband of the plaintiff, and therefore, she was not entitled either for maintenance or for partition of the properties. The trial Court, after considering the material evidence on record, dismissed the suit for maintenance, but decreed the suit for partition of the houses holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/16th share. The said decree became final and was not challenged by the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff filed an application for the preparation of a final decree. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the plaintiff died. The petitioner, being the adopted son of the plaintiff, by virtue of a registered adoption deed, filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substitution. This application was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff had a limited right in the property in dispute in her life time under the Will, and upon her death, the property devolved upon the defendants, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be substituted. The executing Court rejected the application for substitution, against which, the petitioner filed a revision which was also dismissed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 3. The ground for the rejection of the substitution application by the Courts below, as culled out from the impugned orders is, that the plaintiff had limited rights in the property in question under the Will executed by her husband and, upon the death of the plaintiff, the property devolved upon the defendant No. 1, who had become the sole owner of the property in question, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be substituted as the legal representative of the plaintiff. 4. 4. Shri Sharad Malviya, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that since the plaintiff had a limited right under the Will, the decree could not be executed since the property had now devolved upon the defendant No. 1 as per the Will executed by the husband of the plaintiff. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is the adopted son and does not come under Section 15 (2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, and in the absence of any natural heir of the plaintiff, the property devolved upon the heirs of the husband of the plaintiff. 5. Upon considering the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the submission of the learned counsel for the defendants does not hold any merit. At the outset, from a perusal of the decree of the trial Court, the Court finds that the property devolved upon the plaintiff under the Will was not prayed for in the suit filed for partition. A finding has been given by the trial Court that the property involved in the suit was different from the property involved under the Will. A finding has been given that the property involved under the Will had been left out by the plaintiff, and on that ground, the trial Court declined to grant a decree for maintenance. In the light of this finding, the finding of the executing Court that the plaintiff had a limited right in the property in question is against the material evidence and the said finding is based on surmises and conjectures. The Court below, without examining as to whether the property in the Will was the same as the property claimed in the suit, has rejected the substitution application. 6. There is another aspect of the matter. The question whether the plaintiff had a limited right or not under the Will becomes disputed and becomes questionable in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, which contemplates that a property possessed by a female Hindu becomes absolute. 7. Further, while dealing with the application under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Courts are not required to delve into the question of title. 7. Further, while dealing with the application under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Courts are not required to delve into the question of title. The Court is only required to see whether the person sought to be substituted has any right or whether he is the legal representative of the heirs, as defined under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure has a wide meaning which also includes inter meddlers. 8. In the present case, the petitioner claims to be a legal representative on the basis of a registered adoption deed. Order XXII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that where the plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, in that event, the Court, on an application made on that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party, and consequently, proceed with the suit. 9. In the present case, the petitioner claims to be the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. The petitioner, in my opinion, falls within the definition of “legal representative”, as defined under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below committed an error in not substituting the petitioner. It may be observed that by substituting the petitioner, the title of the petitioner over the property in question nor the claim of the respondents that the property reverted to the defendants pursuant to the Will is being decided. These questions/claims of the parties or the title over the property in question could not be decided in a proceeding under Order XXII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such questions have to be gone into in regular proceedings. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The substitution application is liable to be allowed. The executing Court is consequently directed to pass a formal order allowing the substitution application. The executing Court is also directed to proceed with the case and decide the matter at the earliest. ————