SHOBHA RANI Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination in this writ petition is that whether a person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased even without representing the estate without law, may also be a legal representative besides the person who in law represents the estate of the deceased or the word 'legal' confined to legal heir only within the definition of legal representative given in Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H. S. Sahai and learned counsel for respondent No. 5 Sri S. K. Mehrotra.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that a regular Stiff Wo. 44 of 1974, Parmeshwar Nath v. Ram Ghulam, was filed for permanent injunction in respect of a piece of land which was claimed to be sehan of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the trial court against which, an appeal was filed by Ram Ghulam and others before the District Judge, Faizabad. Ram Ghulam and Munna Lal died. When Munna Lal died on 14.2.1988, then applications for substitution were filed in the appeal without there being a dispute that Ram Ghulam as pre-deceased Munna Lal. The petitioner Smt. Shobha Rani also moved an application alleging therein that she was widow of Munna Lal, deceased and legal representative and heir of Munna Lal. The objection of respondent No. 5, Smt. Savitri Devi was that she was widow of Munna Lal and Smt. Shobha Rani, petitioner was not his widow. On this, learned District Judge sent reference to the trial court for the purpose of recording evidence. Learned trial court (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Faizabad) has not given his finding vide order dated 4.7.1996 holding that Smt. Shobha Rani, petitioner as well as Savitri Devi both were married to Munna Lal, but since Smt. Savitri Devi, opposite party No. 5 was married first, the subsequent marriage with petitioner Smt. Shobha Rani being void, cannot be declared as legal heir of deceased Munna Lal.