MT. AMRITIBAI Vs. RATANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this petition for revision arises was filed by one Murlidhar against the present non-applicants 2 to 4 for possession of property on the ground that he succeeded to it as the reversioner after the death of a limited owner. Murlidhar died on 25th February 1926 during the pendency of the suit. The present applicant Mt. Amritibai claiming to be his sole legal representative in her capacity of a widow applied on 7th April 1926 to be brought on record as such. The Gourd thereupon made an order dated 26th April 1926, substituting her name as the sole legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and proceeded with the suit at her instance. While the suit was thus going on the present non-applicant 1, Ratanlal, moved the Court to bring his name on record as the sole plaintiff urging that he acquired the interest of the; deceased Murlidhar by virtue of an oral bequest and was, therefore, entitled to continue the lis in his own name. The time for this application for substitution of names or for the setting aside of the abatement of the suit had long expired. Mt. Amritibai naturally opposed the application of Ratanlal, but the learned Additional District Judge held that the order substituting Amritibai as the legal representative of the deceased Murlidhar saved the suit from abatement and no question of the setting aside of any abatement could, therefore, arise. In this view of the case the lower Court held that Ratanlal's right to continue the suit in his own name as against his rival Mt. Amritibai could not be questioned, On the ground that it was barred by limitation. The applicant Mt. Amritibai has come up. in revision against the order entertaining the 'application of Ratanlal.

(2.) THE question whether Murlidhar made the alleged oral bequest in favour of Ratanlal is still undecided, as, by an order made by this Court, the further enquiry into the matter has been stayed.

(3.) THE expression " the right to sue " means the right to bring a suit asserting a right to the same relief which the deceased plaintiff asserted at the time of his death, as was held in Sarat Chandra v. Mani Mohan [1909] 36 Cal. 799. It, therefore, follows that in the eye of the law the position is the same, as it might have been, had Mt. Amritibai instituted the suit in her own name as it were. Ratanlal could not have forced himself into the case as the sole plaintiff by ousting Amritibai and claiming to continue the suit in his own name, as no Court could have jurisdiction to order a plaintiff who has commenced his suit to vacate in favour of an intruder and hand over to him the conduct of that suit. If the plaintiff who instituted the suit or who has been allowed to continue it, is ultimately found to have no right of suit, he will suffer the consequences; but is will not be legal to deprive him of the conduct of that suit and allow a stranger to continue it. In deciding to entertain Ratanlal's application the lower Court has practically wrested the case from the bands of Amritibai against her will and showed its readiness to hand over the benefit of the lis to a stranger, who has yet to establish his right of suit based on the alleged oral bequest. In doing so the Court has erroneously assumed a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, and its order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The name of Ratanlal, if substituted in the meantime, must be deleted.