Sunil Kumar Jain vs Abdul Karim

N.K. Kapoor, J.

The petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order of the lower Appellate Authority dated April 9, 1986, vide which their application for being impleaded as legal representatives of Amar Nath (deceased) has been rejected and, consequently, the appeal filed by Amar Nath, deceased appellant, held abated.

Briefly put, Amar Nath, predecessor ininterest of the petitioners filed appeal against the order of the Rent Controller dated January 27, 1984 before the Appellate Authority, Sangrur. During the pendency of the appeal, Amar Nath died on July 5, 1984. The petitioners, who are his grandsons, claimed to have succeeded to the estate of the deceased on the basis of Will dated March 9, 1973, and filed an application on September 7, 1984, for being impleaded as legal representatives of deceased Amar Nath the appellant. Another application claiming themselves to be the legal representatives was filed by Shrimati Naroti Devi, widow, Shrimati Padma Devi, Shrimati Sudesh Jain and Shrimati Nirmal Aggarwal, daughters, on January 25, 1985. The appellate Authority instead of holding a summary enquiry as to the respective claims of each set of legal representatives chose to hold regular trial to find out as to who of these are entitled to be impleaded as legal representatives of Amar Nath, deceased. The Appellate Authority, Proceeding in this manner, finally held that the Will as set up by the petitioners, is not proved thereby holding that the petitioners have got no right to represent the deceasedappellant. The application filed by Shrimati Norati Devi and others for being brought on record as legal representatives, too, was dismissed being not within limitation.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, besides assailing the : findings of the Appellate Authority with regard to the due execution of the Will, urged that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority is perverse and runs counter to the various judicial pronouncements in this regard. As per the learned counsel, enquiry envisaged under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a summary enquiry. All that has been envisaged is that the authority is to determine as to who has succeeded to the estate of the deceased. The counsel further argued that even if there was some dispute with regard to the persons who succeeded to the estate of the deceased between the petitioners and Smt. Norai Devi and others, this could hardly be a forum for adjudicating their rights. Either set of the legal representatives could be brought on record and allowed to prosecute the pending appeal after holding a summary enquiry and, thus, he contended that the order of the Appellate Authority is legally unsustainable. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, referred to the decision of this Court dated May 1,1983, in Civil Revision No. 1142 of 1978 (Shrimati Kesri Bai and another v. Jit Singh and another) to the effect that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing an application for being brought on record as legal representatives. Article 120 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to such applications. In any case, the application filed by the petitioners was well within limitation and the same could be taken into consideration while adjudicating between the respective rights of the two sets of legal representatives, who wished to be impleaded as parties. Counsel drew the attention of the Court to the fact that Will has been scribed by the testator and bears his signatures on a number of places. An attesting witness has also deposed in support of the Will thus urged that the same ought to have been accepted Prima facie.

Shri Arihant Jain has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 tenants, Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 6.

Shri Arihant Jain, the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, has not advanced any argument in support of the order of the Appellate Authority and, perhaps, for a valid reason as the tenants have got no locus standi to contest the validity of Will set up by the petitioners or raise any objection as to who has succeeded to the estate of Amar Nath (deceased).

I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as regards scope of enquiry in terms of Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was no need to hold an elaborate enquiry which is domain of Civil Court. Even if the Appellate Authority had any doubt about the genuineness of the Will, it could safely implead Shrimati Norati Devi and others for purposes of the eviction application leaving the parties to get their claims determined in a Civil Court. Order rejecting both the applications for being impleaded as parties is wrong. Article 120 of the Limitation Act is not applicable as held in Shrimati Kesri Bai''s case (supra).

Legal representative'' as defined in Section 2 (11), of the Code of Civil Procedure 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 evolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. " As is clear from this definition, even a person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased has a right to sue and represent him.

Since Shrimati Norati Devi and others respondents No. 3 to 6, have not come forward to challenge the order under revision, it would be quite appropriate to permit the petitioners to prosecute the appeal as legal representatives of Amar Nath (deceased). I order accordingly. This representation by the petitioners would however, in no manner prejudice the claim of Shrimati Norati Devi and others or any other claimants who may wish to lay claim to the estate of the deceased in a Court of competent jurisdiction. I accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Appellate Authority with the direction that appeal be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the passing of this orders. No costs.