Koneridoss vs N. Subbiah Naidu and Others

N.S. Ramaswami, J.—This revision petition is against the order in I. A. No 282 of 1973 in O. S. No 36. of 1963. on the file of the District

Munsif, Periyakularn, which is an application under Order 22. Rule 5, Civil P. C. One Seethammal filed the above suit for partition. There was a

preliminary decree and a second appeal (S. A No. 935 of 1969) against the preliminary decree was pending in this Court. The said Seethammal

died. Koneridoss. the present revision petitioner who is the husband''s sister''s son of the abovesaid Seethammal first got himself impleaded as the

legal representative of Seethammal in the second appeal (S. A. 935 of 1969). He had been so impleaded as the 7th respondent in that second

appeal. At a later stage, Subbiah Naidu the contesting respondent herein filed a petition before this Court in the above second appeal for getting

himself impleaded as the legal representative of Seethammal on the ground that Seethammal had left a registered will under which he (Subbiah

Naidu) is the sole legatee and that therefore he is the only legal representative of Seethammal. The above said petition C. M. P. No. 14623 of

1970 in S. A. 935 of 1969 was disposed of by Ramanujam. J. The learned Judge did not decide who among the two rival claimants is the real

legal representative of Seethammal but allowed both of them to be parties to the second appeal. Subbiah Naidu (herein-after referred to as the

respondent) was added as the 8th respondent in the above said second appeal, while Koneridoss (hereinafter referred to as the revision petitioner)

had already been added as the 7th respondent in the second appeal The learned Judge in that order observed that as there is rival claim as to who

is the legal representative of deceased Seethammal both of them would be treated as legal representatives for the purpose of the second appeal

and that such order is without prejudice to the contentions of either of the parties. The learned Judge also directed that the question regarding the

genuineness of the will set up by the respondent herein is a matter to be agitated in separate proceedings.

After the disposal of the second appeal I. A. 115 of 1968 in O. S. 36 of 1963 come to be filed for passing a final decree. Then the respondent

herein filed I. A. 282 of 1973. out of which the ore-sent revision petition arises, contending that by virtue of the will left by Seethammal he is the

real legal representative entitled to continue the proceedings and that therefore he should be impleaded as the legal representative of Seethammal.

This application is under Order 22, Rule 5, Civil P. C. The learned District Munsif on a consideration of the evidence placed before him held that

the will propounded by the respondent is valid and that therefore he is the only legal representative of Seethammal and that the revision petitioner

herein who claims to be the heir of Seethammal (husband''s sister''s son) is not the legal representative of Seethammal. It js this order that is

questioned in the present revision petition.

Being a revision u/s 115, Civil P. C., it is not open to the revision petitioner to canvas the correctness or otherwise of the factual finding given by

the learned District Munsif regarding the will. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in view of the order passed by

Ramanujam, J., in C. M. P. 14623 of 1970 in S. A. 935 of 1969. the revision petitioner and the respondent should be allowed to continue as the

legal representatives of Seethammal even in subsequent proceedings (final decree proceedings) and that the Court below is wrong in entertaining

an application under Order 22, Rule 5, Civil P. C. filed by the respondent herein. The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme

Court reported in Rangubai Kom Shankar Jagtap Vs. Sunderabai Bhratar Sakharam Jedhe and Others, where at page 1797. it has been ob-

served by the Supreme Court that if the legal representatives are brought on record at one stage of the suit, it will enure for the benefit of all

subsequent stages of the suit. The contention of the learned counsel is that the revision petitioner and the respondent having been brought on record

as the legal representatives of Seethammal in the second appeal which arose against the preliminary decree passed in the suit, such impleading will

enure for all the subsequent stages including the final decree proceedings which are now pending in the trial Court. There can be no dispute that if

once a legal representative is impleaded in a suit that would have effect in respect of subsequent proceedings in the same suit. But in the present

case what has happened is, in the second appeal, the question as to who among the two rival claimants has to be impleaded as the legal

representative of Seethammal had not been decided and the learned Judge (Ramanujam. J.) has specifically left open that question to be decided in

separate proceedings. It would appear that while the revision petitioner came to be impleaded as the legal representative of Seethammal the

respondent and others had no notice of such application. Whatever that be when the respondent filed the C. M. P. in the second appeal, for getting

himself impleaded as the legal representative on the basis of the will, the learned Judge did not so into the merits of the claim of the respective

parties as to who is entitled to represent the estate of Seethammal but allowed both of them to be on record only for the limited purpose of the

second appeal. As already seen, the learned Judge has reserved the dispute between the parties to be decided in separate proceedings.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the separate proceedings contemplated by the learned Judge in his order in C. M.

P. No. 14623 of 1970 is a separate suit and not a proceeding as the present one. The contention is that even in the final decree proceedings, both

the revision petitioner and the respondent should be allowed to be parties as legal representatives of Seethammal and they ought to have been

referred to a separate suit to resolve the dispute between them. Though the contention of the learned counsel appears to be plausible, on a careful

consideration I am of the view that the observation of the learned Judge in the abovesaid C. M. P. is not to be construed in the way in which the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner wants to construe. The learned Judge could not have contemplated that in the final decree proceedings in

the pre- sent suit both the rival claimants should be allowed to be on record without the Court deciding as to who among the two can properly

represent the estate of Seethammal. If both of them are allowed to be on record it would lead to a strange situation. In the final decree, the Court

has to decide as to whom the share of Seethammal is to be allotted. That apart, with regard to the division of the suit properties by metes and

bounds, the question would arise as to who among the two rival claimants should have a way. If both the rival claimants are allowed to be on

record one may contend that the division of the property should be in a particular way and the other may take a different view in the matter. It

would certainly create good deal of confusion. Under these circumstances, when the learned Judge while disposing of C. M. P. 14623 of 1970 in

S. A. 935 of 1969, left the dispute between the parties open to be decided in separate proceedings, he could not have meant that the Court below

is not expected to go into the question as to who among the two can properly represent the estate of Seethammal, Therefore the Court below is

not wrong in entertaining I. A. 282 of 1973 under Order 22, Rule 5. Civil P. C. and holding that the respondent is the legal representative of

Seethammal. The revision petition, therefore, should fail.

However, it must be made clear that the finding of the Court below regarding the validity of the will Propounded by the respondent is not res

iudicata in any suit that might be instituted by the revision petitioner herein. It must be remembered that an order under Order 22, Rule 5, Civil P.

C. is not an appealable one. Because it is not appealable the present revision petition has been filed as asainst that order. There is no dispute that

the order passed by the Court below is not an appealable one. In fact it has been pointed out by a Full Bench of this Court in Venkatakrishna

Reddi and Others Vs. Krishna Reddi, that no appeal lies against an order under Order 22. Rule 5. Civil P. C. The enquiry made under Order 22.

Rule 5, Civil P. C. is only summary in character. Even though witnesses might be examined in support of the contention of either party to that

proceedings, still the proceeding is only summary in character. In S. Eranhi Pakkran Vs. M.K. Pathumma and Others, it has been held that the

question whether a person should be admitted as the legal representative of the plaintiff to continue a suit cannot be regarded as one of the

questions arising in the suit itself being only a matter collateral to the suit and any decision arrived at cannot operate as res Iudicata when a question

arises in some other suit as to succession to the deceased. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has also taken a similar view in Ram

Kalap Vs. Banshi Dhar and Others, . However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner points out that in view of the decision of a Division

Bench of this Court reported in Appavoo Pillai Vs. Vijayambal Ammal, difficulty might arise for the revision petitioner if he files a suit to establish

his right to the estate of Seethammal. In the above decision, the Division Bench has observed that the decision of the Court regarding who among

the rival claimants is the legal representative would operate as constructive res judicata in a subsequent suit. But that is a case where the dispute as

to who is the legal representative of a deceased person arose in execution proceeding. Therefore the decision of the Court regarding who among

the rival claimants was the legal representative become an appealable order by virtue of Section 47, Civil P. C. It should be noted that u/s 47(3)

where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not a representative of the party such question shall for the purpose of that section be

determined bv the Court. Therefore if an executing Court decides as to who among the rival claimants is the legal representative of a party, that

decision is appealable. In Rangaswami Naicker Vs. Rangammal (died) by proposed L.R., K.R. Venkataswami Naidu, Venkataraman, J. has also

taken the same view. Even though the Division Bench which decided Appavoo Pillai Vs. Vijayambal Ammal, had not stated so. I am clearly of the

view that because the order regarding legal representative in that case was appealable, the Division Bench has held that under such circumstances it

would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. If such a view is not taken of the above decision of the Division Bench it would be going

counter to the decision of this Court in S. Eranhi Pakkran Vs. M.K. Pathumma and Others, already referred to which is also a decision by a

Division Bench. When there is a Bench decision directly on the point, a subsequent Bench, unless it is a larger Bench, cannot possibly take a

different view. Under these circumstances, the decision in Appavoo Pillai Vs. Vijayambal Ammal, would in no way prejudice the revision petitioner

in his right to file a separate suit to establish his claim to the estate of Seethammal. In fact this position is conceded by Mr. Sivamani. learned

counsel appearing for the respondent and he unequivocally stated that if and when the revision petitioner files a suit claiming the estate of

Seethammal, the plea that the decision in I. A. 282 of 1973 which is the subject-matter of the Present revision petition is res iudicata against the

plaintiff would not be raised.

The revision petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.