AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandra Iyer, J.—One Bangaru Ammal filed a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties from the respondents on the ground
that the properties were inherited by her from her deceased husband and that she was entitled to possession of the same. The contesting
respondents claimed title to the properties under one Andalammal, daughter of Bangaru Ammal. Their case was that the husband of Bangaru
Ammal had executed a will bequeathing the properties in favour of Andalammal, who, in turn, sold it to the contesting respondents. Bangaru
Ammal died pending her suit for possession, and the petitioners, claiming as the universal legatees under a will executed by Bangaru Ammal, filed
an application under Order 22, rule 3 , Civil Procedure Code, to bring them on record in the place of the deceased Bangaru Ammal. The learned
District Munsiff dismissed the Application.
I am unable to understand the judgment of the learned District Munsif. At the present moment the only question for consideration by the Court is
whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Bangaru Ammal. The Court is not interested in adjudicating at this stage what
exactly was the extent of the interests possessed by Bangaru Ammal, and, whether the suit as laid against the alienee of Andalammal, was
sustainable. On this question, viz., whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Bangaru Ammal, there can be no doubt. It
is not disputed that there is a will in their favour. It is not stated that the will is not genuine, or, that they were not universal legatees. Under the
circumstances, it would follow that the petitioners would be legal representatives entitled to be brought on record.
Mr. Jagadisa Ayyar, the learned Counsel for the respondents, however, raised the contention that the right to sue did not survive to the
petitioner after the death of Bangaru Ammal. His argument was that Bangaru Ammal, even if her case were true, held only a Hindu woman''s
interest in the properties, and, that on her death, there would be nothing left for any testamentary disposition of hers to take effect. It was,
therefore, contended that there can be no legal representatives in respect of the suit filed by Bangaru Ammal in regard to her properties inherited
by her from her husband.
Bangaru Ammal died after the coming into force of Act XXX of 1956. If she was in possession of the properties of her husband as an heir, she
would be entitled to get her absolute title in regard thereto by virtue of Section 14 of the Act. That would enable her to dispose of the properties
by a will.
It was contended that Section 14 of the Act would not apply to the present case as the widow was not in possession of the properties.
According to Bangaru Ammal they were in the possession of trespassers as Andalammal had no right to dispose of the properties. Whether, in
these circumstances, Bangaru Ammal would be disentitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, need not be decided here. It
would be open to the respondents, if so advised, to raise all these questions in the suit itself. But, that would be no answer to the application for
impleading the petitioners as legal representatives in the place of the deceased Bangaru Ammal. The learned District Munsif was, therefore, in error
in refusing to implead them as legal representatives.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased Bangaru Ammal.
There will be no order as to costs.