Estate liability of legal representative can be determined without proving actual possession of assets at trial
A legal representative may be proceeded against in respect of the deceased's estate without the suit first determining whether assets are actually in hand; that question is left to execution. A decree against the representative operates only to the extent of assets of the deceased received or retained, and the court need not require separate proof of possession at the trial stage. Relief may also be granted against the estate even where the plaint framed the prayer too widely as a personal decree, because appropriate relief can be awarded on the pleadings and the facts established. The decree is therefore limited to the deceased's assets in the representative's hands.
Issues: (i) Whether a decree could be passed against the estate or assets of a deceased person in the hands of the respondent as legal representative without requiring a separate inquiry in the suit as to actual possession of assets; (ii) whether the appellant could be granted relief against such assets in second appeal though the plaint had claimed a personal decree.
Issue (i): Whether a decree could be passed against the estate or assets of a deceased person in the hands of the respondent as legal representative without requiring a separate inquiry in the suit as to actual possession of assets.
Analysis: A legal representative is one who in law represents the estate of the deceased, and the right to proceed against such representative does not depend upon proof in the suit that the deceased left assets or that the representative is actually in possession of them. The question whether assets are in hand is a matter for execution. The decree against the legal representative only declares liability to account for assets of the deceased in hand, and the suit need not determine actual possession.
Conclusion: The question of actual possession of assets was not required to be determined in the suit, and the respondent could be proceeded against as legal representative.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could be granted relief against such assets in second appeal though the plaint had claimed a personal decree.
Analysis: The plaint and pleadings were sufficient to support relief against the estate, even if the prayer was framed too widely as a personal decree. Order 7, Rule 7 permits the Court to grant appropriate relief on the facts pleaded, and the Court may give the relief that the law allows when the entitlement is otherwise established.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to a decree against the assets, if any, of Mt. Rukmabai in the respondent's hands.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the appellant obtained a decree limited to the deceased's assets in the respondent's hands, but no costs were awarded in the courts below.
Ratio Decidendi: In a suit against a legal representative, the existence or actual possession of assets need not be determined in the suit itself, and the Court may grant appropriate relief against the estate on the pleadings and law governing representation of the deceased's estate.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
