No Provision In Law Prescribing Sisters To Be Legal Representatives When Wife, Son And Daughter (First Class Heirs) Surviving: Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that sisters cannot be considered legal representatives of a deceased individual especially where the first class heirs including the wife, son and daughter of the deceased were surviving.The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg was hearing a tenant eviction case wherein a revision petition was filed by defendant against an order of the trial order. The trial court...
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that sisters cannot be considered legal representatives of a deceased individual especially where the first class heirs including the wife, son and daughter of the deceased were surviving.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg was hearing a tenant eviction case wherein a revision petition was filed by defendant against an order of the trial order. The trial court had allowed the application for substitution by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and rejected the application for abatement of the case filed by the defendant.
It was the case of the defendant-petitioner that, the application for substitution of legal representatives was filed only by the wife, son and daughter of the deceased whereas the four sisters of the deceased should also have been impleaded/substituted in the case for being his legal representatives. It was further argued that the suit property being an ancestral property, the sisters of the deceased were also legal representatives, being the co-parceners.
The Court took into account and affirmed the findings of the trial court to the effect that the sisters could not be considered the legal representatives of the deceased in terms of law and only the wife, son and daughter could get that title whose impleadment in the case could be taken on record.
The Court aligned with the opinion of the trial court and held that the same were totally in consonance with the law. The Court referred to the definition of “legal representatives” under Section 2(11) of CPC which lays down that a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person falls into the category of legal representative.
In the background of this provision, the Court held that,
“In the present matter, essentially the estate of the plaintiff would be represented by his first class heirs which undisputedly would be his wife, son and daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out to any provision of law which prescribes for the sisters to be the legal representatives even where the first class heirs of a deceased plaintiff are surviving.”
Furthermore, on the argument of the sisters being co-parceners in the ancestral property and hence the legal representatives, the Court opined that the tenant had no locus standi to argue this, since the same could be raised only by the aggrieved legal representatives.
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.
Title: Smt. Kherunisa v Lrs of Jai Shiv Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 213