ORDER : 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated 08.05.2018 passed in Civil Suit-65A/2008, passed by the Second Additional District Judge whereby trial Court allowed application filed under Order 22 Rule 3(1) rw 151 CPC filed by respondent after conducting enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Saeda Begam, sole plaintiff filed a Civil Suit against defendants therein for declaration of title and permanent injunction over immovable suit property mentioned therein, which is a residential house. He submits that sole plaintiff died on 01.06.2009. Petitioner submitted an application under Order 22 Rule 3(1) rw 151 of CPC for his impleadment, pleading therein that house owned by deceased plaintiff Saeda Begam was given on rent. From rental income as well as financial help given by defendants, deceased plaintiff was maintaining herself. On 28.05.2009 deceased plaintiff has given both her houses to petitioner by oral gift(Hiba). Gift was accepted by petitioner and this fact was brought to the notice of respondent which he also accepted. Respondent filed an application for his impleadment in place of deceased plaintiff (in application wrongly mentioned as Order 22 Rule4 of the CPC). Learned trial Court has erroneously allowed application filed by respondent without considering the fact that the Will on which respondent is claiming him to be legal representative was not proved in accordance with law. Will placed on record is with respect to entire property, whereas under Muslim law, owner of property can execute testamentary Will with respect to only 1/3 of total property owned by any of the owner. Hence also, the will on the basis of which respondent is claiming him to be legal representative is not a valid will. He submits that trial Court further erred in rejecting claim of petitioner, overlooking the provisions of Muslim law, wherein oral gift is permissible. Lastly, he contended that even if trial Court has come to conclusion that respondent is having right to continue the suit as legal representative of deceased plaintiff, then, trail Court ought to have clarified that finding recorded by trial Court will not grant any right over property, which is subject matter of Will. Allowing application is with respect to granting him right to continue to the suit only. 3. Allowing application is with respect to granting him right to continue to the suit only. 3. Shri Anoop Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that application of respondent has been allowed by trial Court after following due procedure prescribed under Code of Civil procedure. Learned trial Court in facts of the case, has rightly taken recourse of Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC for deciding the disputed claim between petitioner and respondent with respect to their status as ‘legal representative’ of deceased plaintiff. Learned trial Court in an enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC has recorded evidence of respective parties to prove Will. Petitioner examined scribe of will by name Nitin Kumar Tonk, he stated that he typed the Will, after signature of testator and witnesses he got the said will registered. He contended that Will is required to be proved for limited purpose in the proceedings which is subject matter of writ petition ie proceeding under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC. Execution of document (Will) has been proved by respondent and therefore, there is no error in finding recorded by learned trial Court that respondent is legal representative of deceased based on Will. Proceeding under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC is only with respect to granting right to legal representative to continue with the suit filed by deceased plaintiff or respondent. Learned trial Court also recorded that claim of petitioner based on oral gift could not be proved due to contradictory statement of plaintiff and his witnesses, which is based on appreciation of evidence available before the trial Court which cannot be said to be erroneous. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that during pendency of claim of petitioner, as well as respondent to be legal representative of deceased plaintiff, defendant-1 Mahboobal Hassan also died. Petitioner filed application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC pleading specifically that he is one of the legal representatives of deceased respondent-1 and prayed for impleadment of other legal representatives of deceased Mahboobal Hassan. It is contended that in view of application filed by petitioner before trial Court for bringing legal representatives of defendant-1 and he being one of his sons, his claim that oral gift was executed in his favour is also suspicious. Therefore, trial Court has rightly rejected his claim to be legal representatives of deceased plaintiff-Saeda Begam. 4. It is contended that in view of application filed by petitioner before trial Court for bringing legal representatives of defendant-1 and he being one of his sons, his claim that oral gift was executed in his favour is also suspicious. Therefore, trial Court has rightly rejected his claim to be legal representatives of deceased plaintiff-Saeda Begam. 4. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) through Lrs Vs Satya Sai Central Trust and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 521 . 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. So far as nature of proceedings, which is subject matter of writ petition is proceeding under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC, which is an enquiry for deciding claim of respective parties to be legal representatives of sole plaintiff, or determination as to question of legal representatives of deceased plaintiff. Perusal of record of trial Court would show that petitioner, during pendency of his claim to be legal representative, has moved application under Order 22 rule 4 of CPC for bringing legal representatives of deceased respondent-1. In the application petitioner has clearly pleaded and disclosed that he is one of sons of deceased respondent-1 and has made a prayer for impleading other legal representatives of deceased respondent-1 as legal representatives of respondent-1. 7. In view of aforementioned facts, it is an admitted fact that petitioner is son of defendant-1 to the suit. 8. So far as submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Will based upon which respondent-1 has been held to be legal representative of deceased plaintiff is not proved, is concerned, respondent-1 examined Hari Ram as witness, also got examined scribe of will before trial court in proceeding under order 22 rule 5 of CPC. The scribe of Will admitted execution of Will, drafting of will by him and also getting the will registered in the office of registrar. 9. In view of aforementioned evidence brought by respondent before trial Court in the proceedings for determination of legal representative, in the opinion of this Court, trial Court has not committed any error in allowing application under Order 22 Rule 3 filed by respondent for his impleadment as legal representative of deceased plaintiff. 10. 9. In view of aforementioned evidence brought by respondent before trial Court in the proceedings for determination of legal representative, in the opinion of this Court, trial Court has not committed any error in allowing application under Order 22 Rule 3 filed by respondent for his impleadment as legal representative of deceased plaintiff. 10. Other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of proper proof of Will, respondent cannot get any right over property in dispute based on Will, is also well settled. Document is produced for proof in a proceeding under Order 22 Rule 5, Proceeding is with respect to granting right to continue the suit as legal representative who is claiming to be legal representative for limited purpose ie right to continue the suit as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff. 11. In the proceedings under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC, Court only decides whether the person named in application as legal representative should be brought on record to represent the estate of deceased. It is for limited purpose and it does not confer on the person held to be a legal representative any right to the property, subject matter of suit. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jaladi Suguna (supra) has also held that determination under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC to be legal representative is only for limited purpose, and it will not confer any right on the person held to be legal representative to property which is subject matter of suit, and held as under: “12. `Legal representative' according to its definition in section 2(11) of CPC, 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. Thus a legatee under a will, who intends to represent the estate of the deceased testator, being an intermeddler with the estate of the deceased, will be a legal representative. 15. Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does not amount to bringing the legal representatives on record. When an LR application is filed, the court should consider it and decide whether the persons named therein as the legal representatives, should be brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased. 15. Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does not amount to bringing the legal representatives on record. When an LR application is filed, the court should consider it and decide whether the persons named therein as the legal representatives, should be brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased. Until such decision by the court, the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have no right to represent the estate of the deceased, nor prosecute or defend the case. If there is a dispute as to who is the legal representative, a decision should be rendered on such dispute. Only when the question of legal representative is determined by the court and such legal representative is brought on record, it can be said that the estate of the deceased is represented. The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. Such determination for such limited purpose will not confer on the person held to be the legal representative, any right to the property which is the subject matter of the suit, vis-...-vis other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased.” 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahant Satyanand @ Ramjee Singh Vs Shyam Lal Chauhan and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 485 , relying upon ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jaladi Suguna (supra), further clarified that order determining a particular person as legal representative would not have any affect of final decision or operate as res judicata with respect to other question and held as under: “12. Although we are apprised of the fact that alleged legal representatives relying on certain customs to prove whether a Grihastya could be a Guru under the relevant sampradaya. We need not concern our self with the aforesaid findings on merit given by the trial court at this stage. It is for the High Court to consider the aforesaid report of the trial Court and determine the disputed question of fact. It may not be out of context to note that the determination under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC is summary in nature and for limited purpose. It is for the High Court to consider the aforesaid report of the trial Court and determine the disputed question of fact. It may not be out of context to note that the determination under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC is summary in nature and for limited purpose. Order passed on the impleadment applications, determining a particular person as legal representative has no effect of final decision or operates as res-judicata between the legal representatives as to the question of who should ascend as Guru. At the cost of repetition, we may note that the determination by the High Court would be limited to the question, as to who should be brought on record in the place of deceased for the purposes of continuing the suit alone, and nothing beyond that.” 14. In view of aforementioned ruling of Hon’ble supreme Court, if facts of the case are considered, learned trial Court while conducting enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC held respondent to be legal representative of deceased plaintiff-Saeda Begam and only permitted him to continue with the suit. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the right granted under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC is limited right for continuation of proceedings. In order impugned, Court clearly recorded that the respondent is granted permission to prosecute the suit in place of plaintiff as legal representative. 15. For the foregoing, I do not find any merit in Writ Petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed with aforementioned observations. Record of trial Court be returned back forthwith.