Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2153 (RAJ)

Shakuntala Mathur v. Beena Mathur

2022-07-29

SUDESH BANSAL

body2022
ORDER 1. This order would decide the issue as to whether after death of sole appellant-plaintiff Shakuntla Mathur during pendency of first appeal, any of her legal representatives can be allowed to be substituted in her place as appellants to continue the proceedings of first appeal? 2. This is not in dispute that appellant- Shakuntla Mathur was unmarried and her parents had already been passed away when she died on 1.2.2020. Her two nephews namely Shaleen Mathur and Naleen Mathur sons of Rajendra Swaroop Mathur, have moved an application (1/2020) on 14.2.2020 seeking their substitution as legal representatives of deceased appellant, on the basis of her will dated 28.1.2003. On the other hand her natural brothers, one Rajendra Swaroop Mathur has moved application (3/2021) on 19.4.2021, another brother Ashok Mathur has moved applications (1/2021 and 2/2021) on 8.2.2021, Rakesh & Anil sons of deceased brother Y.S. Mathur have moved separate applications (1/2022 and 2/2022) on 9.2.2022 and (3/2022 and 4/2022) on 15.2.2022, One Mr. Alok son of deceased sister Shardha Mathur has moved applications (6/2022 and 7/2022) seeking their substitution as legal representatives of deceased appellant in the present appeal. Thus, application (1/2022) is based on testamentary succession (on the basis of will executed by deceased appellant) and all other applications are based on non- testamentary succession, filed by natural successor. 3. In order to decide the issue, it is necessary to look into the nature of first appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2018 whereby and whereunder the civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed on merits. 4. The property in question is house No.A-13, Triveni Nagar, Jaipur constructed over a plot measuring 216.66 square yards. This is not in dispute that the said house property was of self acquired property of deceased appellant she was the sole owner. 5. It appears from the record that deceased appellant instituted a civil suit on 23.8.2006 alleging inter alia that she mortgaged her house with United Commercial Bank in order to secure a loan taken by her younger brother Rajendra Swaroop Mathur and his wife Ms. Asha Mathur. Since the loan was not cleared, therefore, bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and she received bank notice on 31.12.2005 that if the due loan amount of Rs.7,72,907/- is not paid by 21.1.2006, the possession of the house will be taken by the bank. Asha Mathur. Since the loan was not cleared, therefore, bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and she received bank notice on 31.12.2005 that if the due loan amount of Rs.7,72,907/- is not paid by 21.1.2006, the possession of the house will be taken by the bank. She further stated in the plaint that younger sister, Smt. Beena Mathur who is respondent- defendant herein approached her and gave an offer to clear the outstanding loan amount of bank subject to condition of mortgaging the house in her favour. Plaintiff stated that she accepted the offer and thereafter, her younger sister- defendant cleared the bank loan and got redeemed the mortgaged property but instead of getting the mortgage deed she got executed sale deed in her favour for sale consideration of Rs.8 lacs. Plaintiff has stated that actual market value of her house property is about 30 lacs and her younger sister has played fraud and by applying tactics has got executed the sale deed registered in her favour, in the garb of getting the mortgage deed registered. After having knowledge, thereafter, deceased appellant-plaintiff challenged the sale deed of defendant dated 20.1.2006 by filing the present suit immediately on 23.8.2006 with a prayer to cancel the sale deed and to declare the same as illegal, null and void and for consequential decree for permanent injunction to protect her possession over the property in question. 6. It is relevant and worthy to take notice that in the plaint itself, deceased appellant-plaintiff has pleaded that her younger brother Rajendra Swaroop Mathur was financially weak and therefore, she maintained his family as well as bored all expenses of higher education for his both sons namely Shaleen Mathur and Naleen Mathur. It is specifically stated in the plaint that deceased appellant-plaintiff had executed a will dated 28.1.2003 in favour of, Shaleen Mathur and Naleen Mathur, both sons of her younger brother Rajendra Swaroop Mathur. Thus, deceased appellant- plaintiff has given reference of her will dated 28.1.2003 in the plaint itself. It may also be noted here that she has produced her will dated 28.1.2003 in her evidence and marked the same as Ex.10 which is available on record of the trial Court. 7. Respondent-defendant contested the civil suit. 8. During course of evidence before the trial Court, appellant's younger brother Rajendra Swaroop Mathur appeared as Pw.2 and deposed his statement in support of plaintiff's suit. 7. Respondent-defendant contested the civil suit. 8. During course of evidence before the trial Court, appellant's younger brother Rajendra Swaroop Mathur appeared as Pw.2 and deposed his statement in support of plaintiff's suit. Her another brother Ashok Mathur appeared from the side of defendant as Dw.3 and supported the sale deed in favour of defendant. Mr. Anil Mathur son of Y.S. Mathur deceased brother of plaintiff, who is one of witness of sale deed in question, appeared as Dw.2 from the side of defendant to support the sale deed in question. 9. Learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 20.7.2018 dismissed the plaintiff's suit on merits. 10. Appellant-plaintiff preferred this first appeal, assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2018 and to pursue her civil suit for cancellation of her sale deed dated 2.1.2006 on the ground of fraud and other grounds mentioned in the plaint. It may also be noted here that after hearing both parties, the first appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 15.3.2019 and the stay application was disposed of in the manner that since appellant-plaintiff is in possession of suit premises, hence, she would continue to remain in possession till disposal of appeal, however, in that undisputed fact that loan amount of Rs.7,72,000/- against the house in question was paid by respondent-defendant to the bank, therefore, appellant is directed to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent by 15th day of each month beginning from April, 2019. Respondent provided her bank account details and deceased appellant deposited mesne profit in the bank account of respondent in compliance of the order dated 15.3.2019 during her lifetime. Thereafter, appellant-plaintiff has passed away on 1.2.2020, hence, the applications referred hereinabove have been filed, seeking their substitution in place of deceased appellant in the present first appeal. 11. In the backdrop of aforementioned facts of the present appeal, before decided the issue as to who can be allowed to be substituted as legal representative of deceased appellant-plaintiff to pursue proceedings of present first appeal, it is expedient to consider the provision of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which defines the term "legal representatives". 11. In the backdrop of aforementioned facts of the present appeal, before decided the issue as to who can be allowed to be substituted as legal representative of deceased appellant-plaintiff to pursue proceedings of present first appeal, it is expedient to consider the provision of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which defines the term "legal representatives". Section 2(11) of CPC reads as under: "(11) '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 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 suied;" 12. With regard to applications filed by natural successors, an argument has been raised that few of natural successors are having adversarial and conflicting interest to the deceased appellant and therefore they may not be allowed to be substituted as legal representatives in place of deceased appellant because they may or may not pursue the cause of litigation and proceedings of first appeal as initiated by deceased appellant. In support of arguments, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gajaraj Vs. Sudha [ (1999) 3 SCC 109 ] and in this case the Supreme Court observed that legal representatives take the place of and are bound by pleadings of their predecessors and they cannot allowed to take up other defenses arising from their individual rights. In Bajrang Lal Vs. Dal Chand [AIR 2009 Rajasthan 36], Rajasthan High Court has observed that legal representatives who have conflicting the interest with deceased's interest, are dis-entitled to represent the deceased. In support of aforementioned principle of law, other judgments of Rajasthan High Court delivered in case of Smt. Dayali Vs. Kumari Lata [2002 WLC UC (Raj.) 593], Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Pratap Singh [ 1989 (2) RLR 273 ], LRs. of Shri Bhanwar Lal Vs. LRs. of Shri Kanhaiya Lal [2002 WLC UC (Raj.) 329] and judgment of Orissa High Court in Radhakrishna Padhi Vs. Bhajakrishna Panda [AIR 1981 Orissa 63] and Gujarat High Court in Ibrahimbhai Karimbhai Vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 1968 Gujarat 202] have been relied upon. Pratap Singh [ 1989 (2) RLR 273 ], LRs. of Shri Bhanwar Lal Vs. LRs. of Shri Kanhaiya Lal [2002 WLC UC (Raj.) 329] and judgment of Orissa High Court in Radhakrishna Padhi Vs. Bhajakrishna Panda [AIR 1981 Orissa 63] and Gujarat High Court in Ibrahimbhai Karimbhai Vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 1968 Gujarat 202] have been relied upon. The principle of law which emerge is that legal representatives of deceased party can continue the original cause and claim of deceased and cannot set up any individual right or hostile interest contrary to the interest and right of deceased. 13. Firstly, the application (1/2020) moved on 14.2.2020 by Shaleen Mathur and Naleen Mathur alleging themselves to be the legal representative being legatee of deceased appellant on the basis of her will dated 28.1.2003 is being considered. This application has been filed well within time, immediately after 14 days of death of sole appellant. It is stated in the application that both applicants have succeeded the suit property belonging to deceased appellant by virtue of her will dated 28.1.2003 and therefore, right to continue the first appeal and to pursue proceedings survives upon them and as such they may be substituted as legal representatives of deceased appellant-plaintiff to continue the suit and appeal. It is stated that as per their knowledge, will dated 28.1.2003 executed by appellant Shakuntla Mathur is her sole and last will and no other will was ever executed by her in her lifetime in respect of suit property. It is stated that no prejudice will be caused to respondent-defendant, if both applicants being legatee of deceased appellant shall be allowed to be substituted in place of deceased appellant as they are also ready to honour the order of the High Court dated 15.3.2019 and have also deposited the mesne profit at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month in the bank account of respondent- defendant Smt. Beena Mathur in compliance thereof. 14. Respondent-defendant has filed reply to the application (1/2020) moved by applicants Shaleen Mathur and Naleen Mathur. In the reply, it is contended that the suit property has already purchased by respondent-defendant vide registered sale deed dated 20.1.2006 and sale deed in question has been held valid by the trial Court in its judgment dated 20.7.2018. 14. Respondent-defendant has filed reply to the application (1/2020) moved by applicants Shaleen Mathur and Naleen Mathur. In the reply, it is contended that the suit property has already purchased by respondent-defendant vide registered sale deed dated 20.1.2006 and sale deed in question has been held valid by the trial Court in its judgment dated 20.7.2018. While denying the execution of will dated 28.1.2003 and disputing the execution, attestation and validity of alleged will, the respondent alleged that will is a false and fabricated document and further since appellant- plaintiff Shakuntala Mathur has already executed a registered sale deed dated 20.1.2006, therefore, bequeathing her property by way of executing the alleged will dated 28.1.2003 in favour of her nephew Shaleen Mathur and Naleen Mathur is of no significance in the eyes of law. It is stated that mere producing the will in evidence and marking the will as Ex.10 during the course of trial ipso facto will not hold the alleged will dated 28.1.2003 to be a valid document. Thus, it is contended that right to sue does not survive or devolves upon applicants on the basis of alleged will and applicants have no right to be substituted as legal representative in place of deceased appellant. It is also stated that after death of deceased appellant Shakuntla Mathur, respondent has come in possession of the suit property and same is presently under her lock and key. The amount of mesne profit deposited by applicants have been returned by respondent and applicants have filed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC simply to complicate and prolonged the present litigation, therefore, the application be dismissed. 15. Counsel for applicants namely Shaleen Mathur and Naleen Mathur submits that applicants are the legatee under the will of deceased appellant who only intend to represent the estate of deceased appellant in order to pursue proceedings of first appeal. He submits that except applicants, there are no other legal representatives who are claiming as legal representatives of deceased appellant on the basis of her any testamentary document and as per definition of Section 2(11) of CPC, they fall within the purview of legal representative of deceased appellant as such are entitled to be substituted in place of deceased appellant at least in order to pursue the proceedings of first appeal. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) Vs. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) Vs. Satya Sai Central Trust [ (2008) 8 SCC 521 ] and Radhey Shyam Vs. Radha Mohan Paliwal [2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 557]. 16. Per contra, counsel for respondent-defendant has argued that will dated 28.1.2003 on which applicants are placing reliance is a fake and fabricated document and otherwise also same does not become enforceable and of no significance, when after execution of will dated 28.1.2003, deceased appellant has executed the registered sale deed dated 20.1.2006 transferring the suit property in favour of respondent. He submits that before allowing applicants as legal representatives of deceased appellant, an enquiry as provided under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC would be required. He has placed reliance on judgment of Mahendra Kumar Vs. Lalchand [ (2001) 2 SCC 619 ], R.Krsna Murtii Vs. R.R. Jagadesan [(2022) 0 Supreme(SC) 622] and Mahanth Satyanand Vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan [ (2018) 18 SCC 485 ]. 17. This Court is not oblivious about the provision of Order 22 Rule 5 which provides a procedure for determination of question as to legal representatives which runs as follows: "5. Determination of question as to legal representative.-Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court: 1 [Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question." 18. It is trite law that determination under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC is summary in nature and for limited purpose to ascertain legal representatives. Such determination does not confer any right to property of deceased even to the person who is held to be his legal representative in relation to subject property vis-a-vis to rival claimants of property of deceased. Thus, in order to claim the property rights over the suit property on the basis of will dated 28.1.2003, applicants has to prove the will in accordance with law. Thus, in order to claim the property rights over the suit property on the basis of will dated 28.1.2003, applicants has to prove the will in accordance with law. Mere substitution of applicants as legal representatives of deceased appellant on the basis of will, would not confer any right, title and interest of the suit property to them. It may be noticed that there are no other applicants who are claiming themselves as legal representatives of deceased appellant on the basis of any testamentary document like will as claimed by applicants. As far as will dated 28.1.2003 of deceased appellant is concerned, it is on record that appellant herself has given reference of her will in the plaint as well as has produced her will in her evidence as Ex.10. Respondent-defendant though has denied and disputed the execution, genuineness, attestation and validity of will in her reply to the application but has not filed any suit for cancellation/declaration of will as null and void. It is needless to say that the issue which is being decided by this Court with regard to substitution of legal representatives, do not adversely affects the right of respondent-defendant as far as the challenge and disputing the will of deceased appellant. The applicants, being legatee under the will of appellant, can be treated as having semblance of interest in pursuing the proceeding of appeal. The Apex Court in case of Jaladi Suguna (supra) has held in para 12 and 15 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. 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. 15. 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-a-vis other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased." 19. The Co-ordinate Bench of Rajasthan High Court in case of Radhey Shyam (Supra) has observed that the legatee under the will, who intents to represent the estate of deceased testamentary being an inter-meddler with the estate of deceased will be a legal representative. 20. Judgment relied upon by counsel for respondent have no application to the facts of present case. In case of Mahendra Kumar (Supra) the Court declared the appeal as abated, without following procedure laid down in Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, therefore, the Supreme Court observed that no abatement of appeal could be ordered until determination of the question as to legal representatives after holding the enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC. 21. In case of R. Krsna Murtii (supra), the application seeking substitution as legal representative was dismissed without restoring to the enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, therefore, the Supreme Court observed that the trial Court could have adopted the course envisaged by Rule 5 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 22. In case of Mahant Satyanand (Supra), two rival chela (disciples) of deceased relying on certain customs claimed their substitution as legal representatives of deceased Guru, therefore, enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC was ordered by the Supreme Court. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has relied upon the principle laid down in case of Jaladi Suguna and has observed as under: "8. The procedural aspect to be followed when an application is filed under Order 22 Rule 5, CPC is no longer res integra as this Court in Jaladi Suguna (deceased) through Lrs. Vs. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has relied upon the principle laid down in case of Jaladi Suguna and has observed as under: "8. The procedural aspect to be followed when an application is filed under Order 22 Rule 5, CPC is no longer res integra as this Court in Jaladi Suguna (deceased) through Lrs. Vs. Satya Sai Central Trust and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 521 , has interpreted Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC in the following terms: '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, can it be said that the estate of the deceased is represented. 16. The provisions of Rule IV and V of Order XXII are mandatory. When a respondent in an appeal dies, the court cannot simply say that it will hear all rival claimants to the estate of the deceased respondent and proceed to dispose of the appeal. Nor can it implead all persons claiming to be legal representatives, as parties to the appeal without deciding who will represent the estate of the deceased and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. The court cannot also postpone the decision as to who is the legal representative of the deceased respondent, for being decided along with the appeal on merits. The Code clearly provides that where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased respondent, such question shall be determined by the court....... Though Rule V does not specifically provide that determination of legal representative should precede the hearing of the appeal on merits, Rule 4 read with Rule 11 makes it clear that the appeal can be heard only after the legal representatives are brought on record'. Though Rule V does not specifically provide that determination of legal representative should precede the hearing of the appeal on merits, Rule 4 read with Rule 11 makes it clear that the appeal can be heard only after the legal representatives are brought on record'. 23. In case at hand, deceased appellant herself has given reference in the pleadings of plaint that she mortgage her property to clear the loan taken by her younger brother Rajendra Swaroop Mathur. She stated that her younger brother Rajendra Swaroop Mathur is financially weak, therefore, she has maintained his family and bored all expenses of education of his children and thereafter she made a reference that she has already executed a will dated 28.1.2003 in favour of sons of Rajendra Swaroop Mathur namely Naleen Mathur and Shaleen Mathur. Even the will dated 28.1.2003 has been produced by deceased appellant- plaintiff in her evidence during course of trial as Ex.10. The interest and right of the applicant is in semblance to the deceased appellant. Thus, prima facie, on the basis of such will dated 28.1.2003, both applicants can be treated to fall within the definition of legal representatives as defined under Section 2(11) of CPC and merely the respondent-defendant has disputed and denied the will, the scope of Order 22 Rule 5 CPC for holding an enquiry may not be invoked. When there is sufficient material on record to determine the legal representative, inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 may not be called for on askance of the opposite party. When, in absence of any material on record, Court is unable determine the question of legal representative, the inquiry is must. The substitution of applicant as legal representative is for the limited purpose to pursue the proceedings of first appeal and mere substitution would not confer any right, title and interest of the suit property to applicants, nor the objection of respondent defendant to challenge the execution, attestation and validity of will in question would be adversely affected. In such backdrop of facts, the enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC seems to be unwarranted and therefore, in such special facts and cirumstances, this Court is not inclined to hold any enquiry about the will under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC. In such backdrop of facts, the enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC seems to be unwarranted and therefore, in such special facts and cirumstances, this Court is not inclined to hold any enquiry about the will under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC. Moreso, when there are no rival applicants qua the present applicants on the basis of will as there is no another will or any other testamentary document of deceased appellant has come on record. Therefore, this Court prima facie finds that it would be just and proper to treat applicants as legal representatives on the basis of will of deceased appellant and they can be allowed to be substituted as appellants in place of deceased appellant for the limited purpose of pursuing the proceedings of first appeal. 24. Accordingly, application (1/2022) stands allowed and applicants are treated as legal representatives of deceased appellant. 25. As far as other applications are concerned, they are claiming themselves as natural successor of property of deceased appellant under the law of Hindu Succession Act. Before dealing with other applications moved by applicants on the basis of alleging themselves to be natural successors, the provision of Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act may be taken into consideration. Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reads as under:- "15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.- (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), - (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub- section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. 16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.-The order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestates property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely:- Rule 1.-Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. Rule 2.-If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre- deceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestate's death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestate's death. Rule 3.-The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub- section (1) and in sub-section (2) to section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father's or the mother's or the husband's as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate's death." 26. Since this is undisputed fact that deceased appellant was unmarried woman and her parents had pre-deceased, therefore Section 15 (1) (a), (b) and (c) does not apply and (d) comes in operation. Since this is undisputed fact that deceased appellant was unmarried woman and her parents had pre-deceased, therefore Section 15 (1) (a), (b) and (c) does not apply and (d) comes in operation. In this manner, heirs of father of deceased appellant would come under the Law of succession and as per Section 16 Rule 1, all heirs of her father shall take simultaneous right of succession. Now who are heirs of the father of deceased appellant, for that the Schedule part of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act has to be considered. As per Schedule, all brothers and sisters of deceased appellant and son & daughter of pre deceased brother and sister of deceased appellant come in class-I as her natural heirs. Thus, as per Section 15(1) (d) and with the aid of Schedule of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and applying the Rule 1 of Section 16, natural brothers and sisters of deceased appellant and son & daughter of pre-deceased brother and sister of deceased appellant, can be treated as natural successor of deceased appellant. 27. In compliance of the order dated 22.4.2022, an application (5/2022) has been filed giving details of surviving natural successors of the deceased appellant and details of family of deceased appellant as provided therein. In the family of father of deceased appellant, there were six sons namely Y.S. Mathur (Deceased), Dwarka Prasad Mathur (Deceased), Virendra Swaroop Mathur (Deceased), Rajendra Swaroop Mathur, Umesh Mathur and Ashok Mathur and four daughters namely Sharda Mathur (Deceased), Shakuntla Mathur (deceased appellant herein), Uma Mathur and Veena Mathur (respondent defendant). The family tree of father of deceased appellant is as under: Sh. Ram Rishipal Ji Mathur and Wife Smt. Chaggan Devi Mathur 28. Deceased appellant's brother Rajendra Swaroop Mathur has moved application (3/2021) on 19.4.2021 seeking his substitution as her legal representatives which has been filed purportedly under Order 22 Rule 3 and Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. It is clear from record that applicant Rajendra Swaroop Mathur has already appeared as Pw.2 in suit proceedings and his two sons, Shaleen Mathur and Naleen Mathur have already been treated as legal representatives of deceased appellant on the basis of will dated 28.1.2003, this Court is not inclined to substitute the brother of deceased appellant as her legal representative, hence, application is dismissed. 29. 29. Deceased appellant's another brother Ashok Mathur has moved applications (1/2021 & 2/2021) on 8.2.2021. These applications have been filed under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As per record, it is clear that applicant Ashok Mathur is one of the witness in the present proceedings who appeared as Dw.3 to support respondent-defendant and to state that sale deed in question challenged by the appellant is lawful and valid, therefore, the interest of appellant is wholly adverse to the interest of deceased appellant and he has no semblance of right with the deceased appellant to pursue proceedings of first appeal, and as such cannot be substituted as legal representative of deceased appellant. Therefore, applications are dismissed. 30. Deceased appellant's deceased brother Y.S. Mathur's another son Anil Mathur has moved applications (3/2022 and 4/2022) on 15.2.2022. Applications have been filed under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As per record applicant Anil Mathur, is one of signatories as witness to the sale deed in question dated 20.1.2006 and he appeared as Dw.2, to support the respondent-defendant to hold the sale deed in question as lawful and valid. His interest in the suit property is adverse to the deceased appellant and as such he cannot be substituted as her legal representative, at least to pursue the cause of suit and proceedings of present appeal, therefore, applications are dismissed. 31. Deceased appellant's deceased brother Y.S. Mathur's son Rakesh Mathur has moved two applications (1/2022 and 2/2022) on 9.2.2022. Applications have been filed involving, provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 31. Deceased appellant's deceased brother Y.S. Mathur's son Rakesh Mathur has moved two applications (1/2022 and 2/2022) on 9.2.2022. Applications have been filed involving, provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It may be noticed that real brother of Rakesh namely Anil is one of the witness of sale deed in question and his father Y.S. Mathur is signatory to the document Ex.6 which is being pursued against deceased appellant to show that after execution of sale deed in question dated 20.1.2006, she remained in possession of the house property as licensee on the basis of document Ex.6, therefore, it may not be said that the interest of applicant in the suit property is parallel to the deceased appellant and he may or may not pursue proceedings of present appeal and therefore he may not be substituted as legal representatives of deceased appellant, as such applications are dismissed. 32. Deceased appellant's deceased sister Shardha Mathur's son Alok Mathur has moved application (6/2022 and 7/2022) dated 18.7.2022. Applications are delayed by near about more than one and half year, therefore provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 read with Rule 9 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been resorted. In the application, he has stated that deceased appellant's brother Rajendra Swaroop Mathur has deposed one affidavit containing false and misleading facts. This affidavit was circulated by son of defendant respondent and thereafter, he has filed this application. This Court is of the considered opinion that applicants need not to be allowed to substitute as legal representative of deceased appellant, when on the basis of will of deceased appellant, her legatees have been allowed to be substituted, to pursue proceedings of present first appeal. Prima facie, it appears that application has been filed, only to complicate the issue and same may not be treated as bonafide. Accordingly, applications are dismissed. 33. Keeping in mind the nature of dispute involved in the present appeal between two real sister regarding cancellation of sale deed, when respondent-defendant, being real sister of deceased appellant, falls in the similar category of the other natural successors who have moved application seeking their substitution as legal representatives of deceased appellant, this Court is not inclined to allow any of natural successor to be substituted as legal representative of deceased appellant as far as the present first appeal is concerned. As discussed hereinabove, few of natural successor of deceased appellant apparently have supported the respondent-defendant and have adversarial interest to the deceased appellant, few supported the appellant, few are neutral and few have not moved any application. When, this Court has treated two nephews of deceased appellant namely Shaleen Mathur and Naleen Mathur as legal representatives of deceased appellant on the basis of will dated 28.1.2003 executed and produced by deceased appellant's heirs, as well as their interest is parallel and in semblance to the interest of deceased appellant, other natural heirs are not require to be substituted who are otherwise also not in the category of first class successor but are in the category of successor equivalent to the category of contesting respondent. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that is has also been clear hereinabove that merely allowing substitution of any person as legal representatives of deceased appellant, same would not confer any right, title and interest in the suit property. The substitution is only for the limited purpose to pursue proceedings of first appeal, filed by deceased appellant. 34. The final outcome of order is that applicants Naleen Mathur and Shaleen Mathur are treated as legal representatives of deceased appellant, on the basis of her will dated 28.1.2003 and they are allowed to be substituted as legal representatives of deceased appellant in the present first appeal for the limited purpose of pursuing proceedings of first appeal and to pursue the cause of suit. Amended cause title, enclosed with application (1/2020) is taken on record. 35. Office is directed to place the amended cause title at appropriate place. 36. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that this order would not affect the legal and property rights of any of the party including applicants and other natural successors who have moved the application seeking their substitution as legal representatives of deceased appellant, as also other natural successors of deceased appellant who have not moved any application and the respondent as well. 37. In view of above, applications (1/2020, 1/2021, 2/2021, 3/2021, 1/2022, 2/2022, 3/2022, 4/2022, 5/2022, 6/2022, 7/2022) stand disposed of.