9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Procedure adopted by the High Court in hearing the appeal without bringing the legal representatives on record. 2. Decision on the question as to who are the legal representatives of Suguna. 3. Judgment on merits upholding the validity of the gift deed and dismissing the suit. Summary: Issue 1: Procedure Adopted by the High Court The appellants argued that the High Court should have first decided the question of representation of the estate of the deceased respondent before hearing the appeal. They claimed that the procedure adopted by the High Court resulted in a miscarriage of justice as it did not afford them due opportunity to effectively contest the appeal on merits. The respondents contended that there was no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the High Court in deciding the appeal and the LR applications together. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have first determined who the legal representatives of the deceased Suguna were, as required by Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, before proceeding with the appeal on merits. The failure to do so rendered the entire judgment a nullity and inoperative. Issue 2: Decision on Legal Representatives The High Court had directed the Trial Court to try the question of who were the legal representatives of the deceased Suguna. The Trial Court found that Suguna had executed two wills in favor of the appellants. However, the High Court disagreed with this finding and held that it was not satisfied that Suguna had executed any will in favor of the appellants. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application filed by the Trust to bring Suguna's husband on record as her legal representative and dismissed the appellants' application. The Supreme Court emphasized that the determination of legal representatives should precede the hearing of the appeal on merits. Issue 3: Judgment on Merits The High Court had formulated two points for consideration in the appeal: (i) whether the gift deed dated 27.3.1980 was void; and (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation. It answered both points in favor of the Trust, upheld the validity of the gift deed, and set aside the decree of the trial court. The Supreme Court noted that the appeal was heard and disposed of without the estate of the deceased being represented, which is impermissible in law. Therefore, the judgment on merits was also set aside. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 19.9.2006, and restored the appeal to the file of the High Court with specific directions: 1. The High Court shall first decide the dispute between the husband of the deceased and her nieces and nephews regarding the legal representatives. 2. The person/s determined to be entitled to represent the estate of the deceased shall be brought on record as the legal representatives. 3. The appeal shall then be heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with law. The Supreme Court requested the High Court to dispose of the appeal preferably within six months and clarified that the determination of representation of the estate of the deceased would be only for the purposes of the appeal and would not affect the rights of claimants in any independent proceedings.
|
