BHOGEGOWDA Vs. HALEBIDU KEMPEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order made by the Munsiff, K.R. Nagar, on I.A.V in O. S. No. 424 of 1975, on his file.

(2.) That application came to be made by the present petitioner under. Order 22 to bring himself on record as plaintiff claiming to be his brother and also the sole legatee to continue the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants. Defendants objected mainly on the ground that he was not the sole legal representive of the deceased plaintiff. Accepting the arguments of the defendants the learned Judge has passed the order questioned in these proceedings directing respondent to make the other heirs viz., the widow and , another brother of the deceased plaintiff also parties as legal representatives.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Will under which the petitioner claims to be the sole legatee is in dispute. In these circumstances, the real question is whether it is open to the Court to compel one of the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased to make all of them representatives in a suit for injunction. In my view, it is unnecessary, so long as the mere fact of being impleaded as a legal representative will not confer any title to the estate of the deceased. In any event defendants are not concerned with that aspect of the case as there is something else in issue in the, proceedings pending before the Munsiff Court. Therefore, that part of the order now under revision, which calls for the widow and the other brother of the deceased plaintiff be also made legal representatives is set aside. It is always open for the widow and the other brother to get themselves impleaded as and when they are so advised. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. In other respects the order of the learned Munsiff stands.