Date of the Judgment: 22 January 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 27
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a person who is not a direct heir, but is named in a will, execute a court decree? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in a recent property dispute. The Court examined whether a legatee (someone who inherits under a will) can be considered a legal representative for the purpose of executing a decree. The bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, delivered the judgment, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property dispute initiated by Umadevi, who claimed a share in the property as the successor-in-interest of her husband, Manicka Naicker. Manicka Naicker had a previous marriage with Valliammal and had a son named Munisamy Naicker. After Manicka Naicker’s death in 1971, Umadevi filed a suit for partition, seeking half of the property. This suit was decreed in her favor on April 7, 1989. However, Umadevi passed away on July 22, 1999, before executing the decree. Varadarajan, the appellant, who is the son of Umadevi’s younger sister, sought to execute the decree as her legal representative based on a Will dated July 16, 1999. The Executing Court allowed his application on March 29, 2004.
Varadarajan then filed an application to evict the respondents and take possession of the property. The respondents challenged the Will, claiming it was forged and that a sister’s son is not a legal heir under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Executing Court, after examining witnesses, found the Will valid and allowed Varadarajan to execute the decree on September 19, 2005.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1971 | Death of Manicka Naicker |
| April 7, 1989 | Umadevi’s suit for partition decreed |
| July 16, 1999 | Umadevi executes a Will in favor of Varadarajan |
| July 22, 1999 | Death of Umadevi |
| March 29, 2004 | Executing Court allows Varadarajan’s application to execute decree |
| September 19, 2005 | Executing Court allows Varadarajan to execute the decree |
Course of Proceedings
The respondents challenged the Executing Court’s order in a revision petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, while acknowledging that the Executing Court could determine the validity of the Will, found that the execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The High Court reversed the Executing Court’s decision, stating that the Will was not proven to be genuine, and therefore, the legatee could not be considered a legal representative to execute the decree.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with the determination of legal representatives in case of a party’s death during a suit. The Court also noted that Order XXII Rule 12 of the Code states that the provisions of abatement do not apply to execution proceedings. The High Court had also referred to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the context of determining legal heirs, although the Supreme Court’s discussion primarily focused on the procedural aspects of legal representation in execution proceedings.
Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states:
“Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court:
Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct the Court of first instance to determine the question, and may send the case back to the Court of first instance for the purpose.”
Order XXII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states:
“Application of order to proceedings.—Nothing in Rules 3, 4 and 8 shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant, Varadarajan, argued that he was the legal representative of Umadevi based on a valid Will executed by her.
- He presented attesting witnesses and the scribe of the Will to prove its execution.
- He contended that no other person had come forward to claim to be the legal representative of Umadevi.
- He argued that the High Court should not have interfered with the Executing Court’s findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- The respondents argued that the Will was forged.
- They claimed that a sister’s son is not a legal heir as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- They contended that the execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, especially since it was made shortly before Umadevi’s death.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant: Validity of Will and Legal Representation |
✓ The Will was validly executed by Umadevi. ✓ Attesting witnesses and scribe confirmed the Will. ✓ No other claimant to be legal representative. ✓ High Court exceeded revisional jurisdiction. |
| Respondent: Challenge to Will and Legal Heirship |
✓ The Will was forged. ✓ Sister’s son not a legal heir under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. ✓ Will executed under suspicious circumstances. |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in the sense that it relied on the procedural aspects of Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing that the Executing Court’s decision should not be overturned in a summary proceeding, and that the High Court had overstepped its revisional jurisdiction. The respondents’ arguments were based on the factual aspects of the case, questioning the validity of the Will and the appellant’s legal standing.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the following:
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Executing Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
- Whether the appellant, as a legatee under a Will, could be considered a legal representative for the purpose of executing a decree.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Executing Court in its revisional jurisdiction. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the Executing Court’s order. The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-evaluating the facts as if it were a first appellate court. |
| Whether the appellant, as a legatee under a Will, could be considered a legal representative for the purpose of executing a decree. | The Supreme Court held that the appellant, as the sole claimant based on a Will, could be considered a legal representative for the purpose of executing the decree. The determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is for the limited purpose of representation in the proceedings. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal provisions to reach its decision:
- V. Uthirapathi v. Ashrab & Ors. [(1998) 3 SCC 148] – The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that the rules of abatement applicable to suits do not apply to execution proceedings. The Court reiterated that legal representatives can be brought on record at any time during the execution proceedings.
- Venkatachalam Chetti v. Ramaswami Servai [ILR (1932) 55 Mad 352 : AIR 1932 Mad 73 (FB)] – A Full Bench of the Madras High Court held that the penalty of abatement does not apply to execution proceedings.
- Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari & Ors. [AIR 1965 SC 1049] – The Supreme Court cited this case to highlight that legal representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased, and the decision obtained with them on record binds the entire estate.
- Kadir v. Muthukrishna Ayyar [ILR 26 MAD. 230] – This judgment of the Madras High Court was approved by the Supreme Court in Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari & Ors.
- Mohinder Kaur & Anr. v. Piara Singh & Ors. [AIR 1981 P&H 130] – A Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a decision under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit.
- Dashrath Rao Kate v. Brij Mohan Srivastava [(2010) 1 SCC 277] – The Supreme Court approved the judgment in Mohinder Kaur, reiterating that an inquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 is summary in nature.
- Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) through LRs. v. Satya Sai Central Trust & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 521] – The Supreme Court held that the determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 is for the limited purpose of representation in the proceedings.
- Suresh Kumar Bansal v. Krishna Bansal & Anr. [(2010) 2 SCC 162] – The Supreme Court reiterated that the determination of legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 5 is only for the purpose of conducting the proceedings and does not operate as res judicata.
- Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – This provision deals with the determination of legal representatives in case of a party’s death during a suit.
- Order XXII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – This provision states that the rules of abatement do not apply to execution proceedings.
| Authority | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|
| V. Uthirapathi v. Ashrab & Ors. [(1998) 3 SCC 148] – Supreme Court of India | Followed to emphasize that abatement rules do not apply to execution proceedings. |
| Venkatachalam Chetti v. Ramaswami Servai [ILR (1932) 55 Mad 352 : AIR 1932 Mad 73 (FB)] – Madras High Court | Followed to reiterate that abatement does not apply to execution proceedings. |
| Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari & Ors. [AIR 1965 SC 1049] – Supreme Court of India | Approved to emphasize that legal representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased. |
| Kadir v. Muthukrishna Ayyar [ILR 26 MAD. 230] – Madras High Court | Approved in Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari & Ors. |
| Mohinder Kaur & Anr. v. Piara Singh & Ors. [AIR 1981 P&H 130] – Punjab & Haryana High Court | Approved to state that a decision under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code is not res judicata. |
| Dashrath Rao Kate v. Brij Mohan Srivastava [(2010) 1 SCC 277] – Supreme Court of India | Followed to reiterate that an inquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 is summary in nature. |
| Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) through LRs. v. Satya Sai Central Trust & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 521] – Supreme Court of India | Followed to state that the determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 is for limited purpose. |
| Suresh Kumar Bansal v. Krishna Bansal & Anr. [(2010) 2 SCC 162] – Supreme Court of India | Followed to state that the determination of legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 5 is only for the purpose of conducting the proceedings. |
| Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Explained the procedure for determining legal representatives. |
| Order XXII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Explained that the rules of abatement do not apply to execution proceedings. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | The appellant is the legal representative of Umadevi based on the Will. | The Court accepted this submission, finding that the appellant was the sole claimant to the estate based on the Will, and therefore, a legal representative for the purpose of executing the decree. |
| Appellant | The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. | The Court agreed, holding that the High Court had interfered with the factual findings of the Executing Court without sufficient legal basis. |
| Respondent | The Will was forged. | The Court did not accept this submission, noting that the Executing Court had examined witnesses and found the Will valid. |
| Respondent | A sister’s son is not a legal heir under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. | The Court did not directly address this point, as the focus was on the procedural aspects of legal representation in execution proceedings, not on the substantive aspects of inheritance. |
| Respondent | The execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. | The Court did not accept this submission, stating that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the Executing Court’s order based on suspicious circumstances. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on V. Uthirapathi v. Ashrab & Ors. [(1998) 3 SCC 148]* to support the view that the rules of abatement do not apply to execution proceedings, allowing legal representatives to be brought on record at any time.
- The Court cited Venkatachalam Chetti v. Ramaswami Servai [ILR (1932) 55 Mad 352 : AIR 1932 Mad 73 (FB)]* to reinforce the principle that the penalty of abatement does not apply to execution proceedings.
- The Court approved Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari & Ors. [AIR 1965 SC 1049]* to emphasize that legal representatives adequately represent the estate of the deceased.
- The Court relied on Mohinder Kaur & Anr. v. Piara Singh & Ors. [AIR 1981 P&H 130]* to reiterate that a decision under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code is not res judicata.
- The Court followed Dashrath Rao Kate v. Brij Mohan Srivastava [(2010) 1 SCC 277]* to emphasize that an inquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 is summary in nature.
- The Court cited Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) through LRs. v. Satya Sai Central Trust & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 521]* to state that the determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 is for the limited purpose of representation in the proceedings.
- The Court relied on Suresh Kumar Bansal v. Krishna Bansal & Anr. [(2010) 2 SCC 162]* to reiterate that the determination of legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 5 is only for the purpose of conducting the proceedings.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the procedural aspects of the case and the limitations of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered with the factual findings of the Executing Court, especially when the Executing Court had properly considered the evidence. The Court also stressed that the determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code is for the limited purpose of representation in the proceedings, and it does not determine the ultimate rights to the property. The Court also considered the fact that no other person had come forward to claim to be the legal representative of the deceased decree holder.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction | 40% |
| Executing Court’s findings were based on proper evidence | 30% |
| The determination of legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 is for a limited purpose | 20% |
| No other claimant to be the legal representative | 10% |
| Fact | Law |
|---|---|
| 30% | 70% |
The Court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%), particularly the procedural aspects of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the limitations of revisional jurisdiction, than by the factual aspects of the case (30%), such as the validity of the Will.
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the High Court’s view that the Will was suspicious and the appellant was not a valid legal representative. However, the Supreme Court rejected these interpretations because they were based on a re-evaluation of facts, which is beyond the scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code is for the limited purpose of representation in the proceedings, and it does not determine the ultimate rights to the property.
The Supreme Court’s decision was that the High Court’s order was not sustainable in law. The Court held that the appellant, as the sole claimant to the estate based on the Will, was entitled to execute the decree. The Court found that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with the factual findings of the Executing Court. The Court restored the order of the Executing Court.
The Court reasoned that the appellant had presented attesting witnesses and the scribe of the Will to prove its execution. The Court also noted that no one else had come forward to claim to be the legal representative of the deceased decree holder. The Court emphasized that the determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code is for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased and for adjudication of that case.
The Court quoted from its previous judgements:
“In other words, the normal principle arising in a suit — before the decree is passed — that the legal representatives are to be brought on record within a particular period and if not, the suit could abate, — is not applicable to cases of death of the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings.”
“The legal representative is appointed for orderly conduct of the suit only. Such a decision could not take away, for all times to come, the rights of a rightful heir of the deceased in all matters.”
“Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does not amount to bringing the legal representatives on record. When an LR application is filed, the court should consider it and decide whether the persons named therein as the legal representatives, should be brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased.”
There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.
The decision has implications for future cases, particularly in the context of execution proceedings. It clarifies that the determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code is for the limited purpose of representation in the proceedings and does not determine the ultimate rights to the property. The decision also underscores the limitations of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that the High Court should not interfere with the factual findings of subordinate courts unless there is a clear error of law.
The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing legal principles related to legal representation in execution proceedings and the scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A legatee under a Will can be considered a legal representative for the purpose of executing a decree, especially when no other person claims to be the legal representative.
- The determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code is for the limited purpose of representation in the proceedings.
- The High Court should not interfere with the factual findings of the Executing Court in its revisional jurisdiction unless there is a clear error of law.
- The rules of abatement do not apply to execution proceedings, allowing legal representatives to be brought on record at any time.
This judgment clarifies the procedural aspects of legal representation in execution proceedings and reinforces the limitations of revisional jurisdiction. It may lead to more efficient execution of decrees by ensuring that a clear legal representative can be brought on record without unnecessary delays or challenges.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the Executing Court, allowing the appellant to execute the decree.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a legatee under a valid Will can be considered a legal representative for the purpose of executing a decree, especially when no other person claims to be the legal representative. The judgment also reinforces the principle that the determination of a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code is for the limited purpose of representation in the proceedings and does not determine the ultimate rights to the property. This decision does not change any previous positions of law but clarifies the existing principles related to legal representation in execution proceedings and the scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the Executing Court’s decision. The Court held that the appellant, as the sole claimant under a valid Will, was entitled to execute the decree as the legal representative of the deceased decree holder. The Court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with the factual findings of the Executing Court. The decision clarifies the procedural aspects of legal representation in execution proceedings and reinforces the limitations of revisional jurisdiction.
Category
- Civil Law
- Execution of Decree
- Legal Representative
- Order XXII Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Revisional Jurisdiction
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Order XXII Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Order XXII Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956
- Section 15, Hindu Succession Act, 1956
FAQ
Q: Can a person named in a will execute a court decree?
A: Yes, according to this Supreme Court judgment, a person named in a will (a legatee) can execute a court decree as a legal representative, especially if no other person claims to be the legal representative of the deceased.
Q: What is the significance of Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
A: Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with the determination of legal representatives when a party dies during a suit. The Supreme Court clarified that this determination is for the limited purpose of representation in the proceedings and does not decide the ultimate rights to the property.
Q: What does revisional jurisdiction mean in this context?
A: Revisional jurisdiction refers to the power of a higher court to review the decisions of a lower court. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-evaluating the facts of the case, which is not permissible.
Q: Does this judgment change the rules of inheritance?
A: No, this judgment does not change the rules of inheritance. It focuses on the procedural aspects of legal representation in execution proceedings. The judgment clarifies that a legatee can be a legal representative for the purpose of executing a decree, but it does not determine the ultimate rights to the property.
Q: What does it mean that the rules of abatement do not apply to execution proceedings?
A: This means that if a party dies during execution proceedings, the proceedingsdo not automatically end. Legal representatives can be brought on record at any time, unlike in a suit where there is a time limit for bringing legal representatives on record.