- (1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. By this petition the revisionist challenges an order dt. 31-5-84, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad in Suit No. 149 of 1972 where by he allowed the respondents Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Smt. Prabha Pachauri to be brought on record as legal representatives of deceased-plaintiff Smt. Sharda Devi.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents. Smt. Sharda Devi deceased filed the aforesaid suit for possession of a piece of land situate within the town of Farrukhabad and forming part of plot number 3626 and shown by letters BCDCFE in a map attached to the plaint. Her case was that prior to abolition of Zamindari in 1964 she was sirdar of the said plot and after the abolition she became the bhumidhar. The plaintiff Smt. Sharda Devi died during the pendency of the suit and present respondents moved an application for being substituted in her place as her legal representatives their con tention was that they are the sisters of the deceased who has left no other heir. Defen dant-revisionist filed an objection to the said application which is paper number 163-C on the record of the Court below in which it was stated that they are the legal representatives of the deceased, it was not alleged that the deceased plaintiff had left any other person who could be brought on record as her legal representatives. The Court below allowed the application of the respondents and brouhgt them on record as legal representatives of the deceased. It is not disputed that the respon dents are the real sisters of the deceased. Their allegation that the deceased left no other heir was not challenged. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the property in dispute devolved of Smt. Sharda Devi from her deceased husband and succession to the said property was governed by the provisions of the U. P. ZALR Act. According to which on the death of Smt. Sharda Devi the land was to revert to the heirs of the last made owner i. e. the husband of Smt. Sharda Devi. It is, therefore, contended that the order allow ing sisters of the deceased-plaintiff to be brought on record as legal representatives is erroneous. Learned counsel for the revisionist Sri N. Lal did not contend that any other heir of the deceased husband was available for being brought on record.
(3.) THE word "legal representative" has been defined in S. 2 (11) of the CPC to mean "a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. " Sub-rule (2) of R. 3 of O. XXII provides that where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff. " Thus, the person who is to be brought in as a legal representative is one who in law represents estate of the deceased or intermeddles with it. THE word estate "has a wider scope than the property in dispute. THE law does not say that the per son on whom the property in dispute devol ves would be treated to be the legal repre sentative of a deceased plaintiff. It is not in dispute that in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act the two respondents were the legal heirs of the deceased. It is not the case of the revisionist that the deceased Sharda Devi left no assets to which the Hindu Succession Act applied. THE entire property and rights of a deceased person constitute his estate and the respondents being the legal heirs in terms of Hindu Suc cession Act could represent the estate of the deceased and be brought on record as her legal representatives. THE suit was for pos session of a portion of plot number 3626/1 on which the defendant revisionist was al leged to have trespossed. It was not disputed that the deceased plaintiff was and after her death the respondents were in possession of the rest of the said plot. THErefore, they were the persons who intermeddled with the estate of the deceased and for that reason also they could be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased. In Ram Kalap v. Banshi Dhar, 1958 ALJ 8 in a suit for cancellation of a gift deed one Ram Kalap was substituted as a legal representative of the deceased plaintiff Ram Samujh. The suit was ultimately decreed. Later the said Ram Kalap filed a suit for possession of the same property in which the defendant challenged the will on the basis of which he was brought on record as legal representative of Ram Samujh in the earlier suit. It was held that the question about the validity of the will was not barred by the principles of res judicata. This Court held that an order passed under Order XXII R. 5 of the CPC, involved a summary enquiry as to who should be substituted in place of the deceased in the appeal during the pen dency of which he died and, therefore, such a decision would not constitute res judicata.;