9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Impleadment of legal representative in pending appeal. 2. Validity of a registered Will as basis for representation. 3. Interpretation of 'legal representative' under Section 2(11) of CPC. 4. Distinction between legal representative and legal heir in court proceedings. 5. Consideration of interest and legitimacy in impleading legal representative. Analysis: 1. The case involved a suit seeking a mandatory injunction for the execution of a sale-deed, where the original defendant passed away during the proceedings, necessitating the impleadment of the legal representative. The appeal was filed by the widow of the deceased, who also passed away, leading to a new application for impleadment based on a registered Will by the present petitioner. 2. The rejection of the application was based on the contention that the Will was void and lacked a probate, raising doubts about its validity. The petitioner argued that no other claimant had come forward, and the existence of the Will was not disputed, although its timing raised suspicions. The failure to distinguish between a legal representative and a legal heir was highlighted as a crucial error by the lower appellate court. 3. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the distinction between a legal representative for court proceedings and a legal heir entitled to inherit property. The court clarified that a legal representative need not be a legal heir and that the determination of representation does not establish heirship rights. The focus should be on the interest in litigation and legitimacy, rather than inheritance rights. 4. The court acknowledged the existence of a registered Will in favor of the petitioner, indicating a reasonable basis for impleadment as a legal representative. The lack of competing claims and the objection based on the Will's validity did not negate the petitioner's interest in representing the deceased's estate in the appeal, while acknowledging the need for separate proceedings to determine heirship rights. 5. Ultimately, the court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the previous order of abatement and granting impleadment of the petitioner as the legal representative in the pending appeal. It emphasized that the decision in the appeal would not determine the petitioner's rights as a legal heir, which would require separate proceedings. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
