In a recent judgment, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that sisters of a deceased individual cannot be considered legal representatives when the first-class heirs, such as the wife, son, and daughter, are surviving. This ruling came as the court dismissed a revision petition challenging the substitution of legal representatives in an ongoing eviction suit.
Background of the Case
The case arose after the death of Jai Shiv Singh, the original plaintiff in an eviction suit. Following his death on September 4, 2021, an application was filed by his wife, son, and daughter under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, to substitute themselves as the legal representatives. The petitioner, representing the defendants, contested this substitution, arguing that the deceased plaintiff’s sisters should also be included as legal representatives, especially since the property in question was ancestral.
The petitioner further argued that the substitution application was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and that the sisters, as coparceners in the ancestral property, had a rightful claim to be included as legal representatives.
Legal Issues Involved
The key legal issues before the court were:
1. Timeliness of the Substitution Application: Whether the application to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff was filed within the stipulated time.
2. Definition of Legal Representatives: Whether the sisters of the deceased plaintiff could be recognized as legal representatives under the CPC.
3. Rights Over Ancestral Property: Whether the ancestral nature of the property necessitated the inclusion of the sisters as legal representatives.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Manoj Kumar Garg, upheld the decision of the Trial Court, which had allowed the substitution of the deceased plaintiff’s wife, son, and daughter as legal representatives. The court observed that the application for substitution was filed well within the 90-day limitation period provided by law.
On the crucial issue of who qualifies as a legal representative, the court referred to Section 2(11) of the CPC, which defines a legal representative as someone who, in law, represents the estate of the deceased. The court clarified that the first-class heirsโnamely the wife, son, and daughterโare the rightful legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
The court made it clear:
“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.”
In dismissing the argument about the ancestral nature of the property, the court pointed out that the current suit was for eviction and not related to ownership disputes. Moreover, the court asserted that a tenant does not have the standing to question who should be deemed legal representatives of the landlord.
Also Read
The court also highlighted that an earlier application by one of the deceased plaintiff’s sisters for impleadment had already been rejected, further solidifying the decision that the sisters were not to be considered legal representatives.
The revision petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details
Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Garg
Case Title: Smt. Kherunisha vs LRs of Jai Shiv Singh & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 208/2023
