Appellate Court Allows Legal Representatives to Continue Injunction Suit Post-Plaintiff's Death, Affirms Trial Reevaluation.

The appellate court allowed the substitution of the respondent as the appellant/plaintiff after the original plaintiff's death, affirming that the right to an injunction survives to legal representatives. The court dismissed the petitioners' revision petition, permitting the respondent's son to apply for impleadment. The court emphasized that disinheritance and Will validity would be determined during trial proceedings, and the previous abatement ruling by the Delhi court did not preclude reevaluation. The judgment underscores the principle that the cause of action in an injunction suit can survive to legal heirs, contingent on possession and the merits of related disputes.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of substitution of legal representatives in a case where the original plaintiff passed away during the pendency of the appeal, and whether the cause of action in an injunction suit survives to the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff.

Issue 1: Substitution of Legal Representatives
The petitioners challenged the order allowing the respondent to be substituted as the appellant/plaintiff after the death of the original appellant, Usha Tiwari. The appellate court allowed the substitution based on the principle that if a legal representative can enjoy the relief sought by the deceased plaintiff, the cause of action would survive. The petitioners contended that the cause of action was personal to Usha Tiwari and did not survive after her death. They also argued that Usha Tiwari had executed a Will bequeathing the property to petitioner No. 1, thus no cause of action existed for the respondent. However, the court held that the right to an injunction does not die with the death of the plaintiff, and the legal representatives can continue the suit if they come into possession of the property in dispute.

Issue 2: Disinheritance and Will Dispute
The respondent claimed that petitioner No. 1 was disinherited by Usha Tiwari and that the property was bequeathed to the respondent's son. The court noted that the determination of disinheriting petitioner No. 1 and the validity of the Will would be decided during the trial. The court emphasized that if the respondent and his son can prove disinheriting and the Will's validity, they have a right to obtain an injunction against the petitioners. The court highlighted that the merits of the Will dispute and disinheriting claims would be subjects of determination during the trial.

Issue 3: Abatement of Suit in Delhi Court
The petitioners referred to a suit in a civil court in Delhi where the suit was held to have abated after Usha Tiwari's death. The court observed that the Delhi court did not discuss the matter in detail and concluded the suit abated without considering the merits. The court held that this observation could not preclude the appellate court from examining the issue on its merits and forming a different view. The judgment dismissed the revision petition, allowing the respondent's son to move an application for his impleadment as a party before the appellate court or trial court.

This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the survival of cause of action in an injunction suit to the legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff and emphasizes the importance of determining issues such as disinheriting and Will disputes during the trial proceedings.

---