Legal representative defence in specific performance suits cannot be denied where title or interest is shown.

A legal representative brought on record in a specific performance suit may file an additional written statement and raise all available defences, subject to adjudication on merits. A restrictive reading of Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC that would confine the representative to a purely formal role was treated as inconsistent with natural justice. The Court also distinguished impleadment cases by noting that a person showing a fair semblance of title or interest cannot be excluded merely because earlier impleadment requests were rejected. On the facts, the defendants were entitled to participate and adduce evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the legal representatives of a deceased defendant in a suit for specific performance can be permitted to file an additional written statement and raise all available defences, and whether a third party or legal representative with a semblance of title can be denied such participation merely because earlier impleadment requests were rejected.

Analysis: A legal representative, once brought on record, is entitled to defend the suit and to take pleas available to him, subject of course to adjudication by the trial court on their merits. The restrictive reading of Order 22 Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which would confine such a party only to the limited character of legal representative and deny a defence altogether, was held to be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. The Court also distinguished the precedent concerning impleadment in specific performance suits by holding that a stranger or interloper without any semblance of title cannot be added, but a person who shows a fair semblance of title or interest cannot be excluded. Since the registered sale deed indicated that the property had been purchased not only in the name of the deceased but also in the names of his sons, the claim was not that of a mere busybody. Earlier rejection of impleadment applications did not justify denying the legal representatives the right to file an additional written statement.

Conclusion: The legal representatives were entitled to file an additional written statement and adduce evidence, and the courts below were wrong in refusing that opportunity. The issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the suit was directed to proceed with the appellants being allowed to file an additional written statement.

Ratio Decidendi: A legal representative brought on record in a civil suit may raise all defences available to him, and a person showing a fair semblance of title or interest cannot be excluded from participation merely by a rigid application of impleadment rules in a suit for specific performance.

---