SURAJ PRASAD Vs. MTLUKHER KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications in revision arise out of three partition suits filed by one Mt. Suraj Bansi Kuer, the mother of Gobardhan, deceased. After a preliminary decree in the suits had been passed, the plaintiff died. Gobardhan's paternal grand-mother was then brought on the record in place of the original plain, tiff. The substituted plaintiff also died. Lukher Kuer, a sister of Gobdrdhan, applied to be substituted in place of the deceased plaintiff. The application was opposed by the petitioner who claims as a reversionary heir of Gobardhan.

(2.) It was the duty of the Court under Rule 5, Order 23, to decide which of the rival claimants was the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. Pending the decision of this matter, the present petitioner had his name recorded in the land registration department in respect of the disputed share. Thereafter the Civil Court held that Lukher Kuer was in law the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and ordered her name to be entered on the record in place of that of the grandmother of Gobardhan. Being dissatisfied with that decision, the petitioner has moved this Court in revision.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Mullick on his behalf that he is also entitled to have his name brought on the record as a plaintiff. Reference was made to the definition of "legal representative" in Section 2, Clause (11), Civil P.C. which states that legal representative includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. It is contended that this means that a person intermeddling with the estate of the deceased is always a legal representative and must therefore be brought on the record. That argument is clearly unsustainable. Under Rule 5, Order 23, when more than one person claim to be the legal representative of a deceased's property, the Court is required to decide which of the rival claimants is in fact the legal representative.