Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit for possession instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs on June 5, 1984 in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi against the first defendant Brijmohan Kapoor, who was the deceased husband of the petitioner Vidyawati, and the second defendant. One Man Mohan, son of Jagmohan Kapoor, was impleaded to represent the estate of Brij Mohan Kapoor. The controversy centered on rights under a will executed by Smt. Champawati, which allegedly created a life interest in favour of the first defendant and a subsequent right in favour of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner, as legal representative of the deceased first defendant, sought to file an additional written statement claiming title to and interest in the suit property under the said will. The trial court dismissed the application by order dated August 6, 1994 in Suit No.418/84, holding that it was not open to the applicant to assert her own individual or hostile title to the suit; the legal representative could raise individual points only after getting impleaded in personal capacity or by filing a separate suit. The High Court dismissed the civil revision, Civil Revision No.953/94, on November 11, 1994, affirming the trial court. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a legal representative of a deceased defendant, impleaded under Order 22 Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could file an additional written statement raising an independent title, right or interest in the suit property, particularly where the claim was founded on the same will executed by Smt. Champawati. The petitioner argued that both the plaintiff and the first defendant's claims were based on the will; the first defendant had only a life interest which was co-terminus with his demise, and the petitioner had a subsequent right, and therefore she could raise the plea that the deceased defendant could have raised. She relied on the decision in Bal Kishan v. Om Parkash & Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1952. The respondents-plaintiffs opposed the application, and the courts below had held that the legal representative could not assert independent title without proper impleadment. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4(2) and the precedents in Bal Kishan and Jagdish Chander Chatterjee & Ors. v. Sri Kishan & Anr., 1973 (1) SCR 850. It observed that under the sub-rule, a legal representative of a deceased defendant is authorised to file an additional written statement or statement of objections raising all pleas which the deceased defendant had or could have raised, except those which were personal to the deceased. However, the Court clarified that this does not permit the legal representative to set up their own independent title in that capacity. If the legal representative has an independent right, title or interest in the property, they must get impleaded in the suit as a party defendant in their personal capacity, in which event they could set up their own independent right, title and interest to resist the plaintiff's claim or challenge any decree. The Court also noted that the legal representative could seek impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC or retain the right to file an independent suit asserting their own title. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the view taken by the courts below was perfectly legal. It found no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity warranting interference. Accordingly, the special leave petition was dismissed. The decision confirmed that a legal representative cannot assert an independent or hostile title merely by filing an additional written statement under Order 22 Rule 4(2), but must take appropriate steps either by way of personal impleadment or a separate suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Legal Representative - Additional Written Statement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 22 Rule 4(2) - The question was whether a legal representative of a deceased defendant could file an additional written statement asserting her own independent title to suit property under a will. The Supreme Court held that under Order 22 Rule 4(2), the legal representative can raise only pleas that the deceased defendant had or could have raised, except those personal to the deceased, and cannot assert independent or hostile title in that capacity. Courts below rightly refused permission. Held that the view taken by the courts below was perfectly legal. B) Civil Procedure - Impleadment - Independent Title of Legal Representative - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 Rule 10 - If a legal representative claims an independent right, title, or interest de hors the deceased defendant, she must get impleaded in her personal capacity under Order 1 Rule 10 or file a separate suit. The Supreme Court affirmed this proposition and noted that the petitioner may pursue such remedy. Held that dismissing the SLP was proper.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a legal representative of a deceased defendant can file an additional written statement asserting independent title to suit property; and whether courts below correctly refused permission to do so
Final Decision
Special Leave Petition dismissed. Supreme Court upheld orders of trial court and High Court; held that petitioner as legal representative under Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC could not assert independent title in additional written statement; she may seek impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC or file separate suit.
Law Points
- Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC permits legal representative to file additional written statement only with pleas available to deceased defendant
- independent title must be asserted via impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC or separate suit
- legal representative cannot claim hostile title in capacity as legal representative
