2008 (5) TMI 752 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court's Failure to Determine Legal Representatives Renders Judgment Null. Emphasizes Importance of Legal Representation.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's failure to determine the legal representatives of the deceased before proceeding with the appeal rendered the ... Determination of legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC - mandatory requirement to bring legal representatives on record before hearing appeal - legal representative definition under Section 2(11) CPC - proviso permitting reference to subordinate court for trial of representation issue - determination for limited purpose of representation not affecting proprietary rights - hearing of appeal against unrepresented deceased is nullityMandatory requirement to bring legal representatives on record before hearing appeal - hearing of appeal against unrepresented deceased is nullity - High Court's hearing and disposal of the appeal without first determining and bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record rendered the judgment a nullity - HELD THAT: - Order 22 read with Rule 11 requires that when a respondent in an appeal dies and the right to sue survives, the legal representatives of the deceased must be made parties before the Court proceeds with the appeal. Filing of an LR application does not itself bring persons on record; the Court must decide the dispute as to who is the legal representative for the limited purpose of representation in that proceeding. Where the estate of the deceased remained unrepresented at the time the appellate court heard and decided the appeal, the appellate court has in effect heard the appeal against a dead person and no valid 'hearing' in law has occurred. Consequently a judgment disturbing the decree obtained by the deceased in such circumstances is a nullity and inoperative. [Paras 11, 12, 13]The High Court's judgment dated 19.9.2006 is a nullity for having heard and disposed of the appeal without first determining and placing on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent.Determination of legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC - proviso permitting reference to subordinate court for trial of representation issue - The correct procedure is to determine the question of who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5, and the Appellate Court may, under the proviso, refer that question to a subordinate court for trial and take its findings into consideration - HELD THAT: - Order 22 Rule 5 contemplates that where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased party, the question shall be determined by the Court. The proviso permits the Appellate Court to direct a subordinate Court to try the question and return records, evidence, findings and reasons so the Appellate Court can then determine representation. In the present case the High Court properly obtained findings from the Trial Court under the proviso, but thereafter ought to have itself decided who were the legal representatives and only then permitted the successful person(s) to be placed on record before hearing the appeal on merits. [Paras 3, 4, 8, 14]The High Court must decide the dispute as to legal representatives (after considering the Trial Court's findings returned under the proviso) and only thereafter proceed to hear the appeal on merits.Legal representative definition under Section 2(11) CPC - determination for limited purpose of representation not affecting proprietary rights - Determination of who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 is for the limited purpose of representation in that proceeding and does not adjudicate or confer proprietary rights in the estate - HELD THAT: - Section 2(11) defines 'legal representative' to include a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and any person who intermeddles with the estate. A legatee under a will who intermeddles may be a legal representative for the proceedings. The Court's determination under Rule 5 is confined to representation of the estate for the adjudication of that case; it does not operate as a decision on title or rights to the property vis-a -vis rival claimants in other proceedings. [Paras 8, 10, 11]The Court's determination of legal representation is limited to representation for that appeal and does not affect substantive proprietary rights of competing claimants.Determination of legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC - mandatory requirement to bring legal representatives on record before hearing appeal - Remand direction: High Court to determine representation, bring determined person(s) on record, then hear appeal on merits - HELD THAT: - Given that the High Court disposed of the appeal without first deciding who represented the deceased's estate, the Supreme Court set aside that judgment and restored the appeal to the High Court with directions: first decide the dispute between rival claimants (after considering the Trial Court's findings dated 28.11.2005 and hearing parties), bring on record the person(s) held to represent the estate, and thereafter hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. The Supreme Court further clarified that the High Court's determination of representation is solely for the purposes of the appeal and will not affect independent adjudications between claimants. [Paras 14, 15]Appeal restored to the High Court with directions to determine legal representation first, place the determined legal representative(s) on record, and then proceed to hear the appeal on merits; High Court requested to decide preferably within six months.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the judgment of the High Court dated 19.9.2006 is set aside as a nullity for having been rendered without first determining and bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The matter is restored to the High Court with directions to decide the dispute as to representation (after considering the Trial Court's findings), bring the determined legal representative(s) on record, and thereafter hear and dispose of the appeal on merits; the representation determination is only for purposes of the appeal and does not affect proprietary rights between rival claimants. Parties to bear their respective costs. Issues Involved:1. Procedure adopted by the High Court in hearing the appeal without bringing the legal representatives on record.2. Decision on the question as to who are the legal representatives of Suguna.3. Judgment on merits upholding the validity of the gift deed and dismissing the suit.Summary:Issue 1: Procedure Adopted by the High CourtThe appellants argued that the High Court should have first decided the question of representation of the estate of the deceased respondent before hearing the appeal. They claimed that the procedure adopted by the High Court resulted in a miscarriage of justice as it did not afford them due opportunity to effectively contest the appeal on merits. The respondents contended that there was no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the High Court in deciding the appeal and the LR applications together. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have first determined who the legal representatives of the deceased Suguna were, as required by Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, before proceeding with the appeal on merits. The failure to do so rendered the entire judgment a nullity and inoperative.Issue 2: Decision on Legal RepresentativesThe High Court had directed the Trial Court to try the question of who were the legal representatives of the deceased Suguna. The Trial Court found that Suguna had executed two wills in favor of the appellants. However, the High Court disagreed with this finding and held that it was not satisfied that Suguna had executed any will in favor of the appellants. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application filed by the Trust to bring Suguna's husband on record as her legal representative and dismissed the appellants' application. The Supreme Court emphasized that the determination of legal representatives should precede the hearing of the appeal on merits.Issue 3: Judgment on MeritsThe High Court had formulated two points for consideration in the appeal: (i) whether the gift deed dated 27.3.1980 was void; and (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation. It answered both points in favor of the Trust, upheld the validity of the gift deed, and set aside the decree of the trial court. The Supreme Court noted that the appeal was heard and disposed of without the estate of the deceased being represented, which is impermissible in law. Therefore, the judgment on merits was also set aside.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 19.9.2006, and restored the appeal to the file of the High Court with specific directions:1. The High Court shall first decide the dispute between the husband of the deceased and her nieces and nephews regarding the legal representatives.2. The person/s determined to be entitled to represent the estate of the deceased shall be brought on record as the legal representatives.3. The appeal shall then be heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with law.The Supreme Court requested the High Court to dispose of the appeal preferably within six months and clarified that the determination of representation of the estate of the deceased would be only for the purposes of the appeal and would not affect the rights of claimants in any independent proceedings.