Enquiry as to legal heirs-factors to be taken in to consideration
Now coming to the judgments of the Apex Court (supra), in the
case of Jaladi Suguna's case (supra), the facts were that the Plaintiff Suguna
died during the pendency of the Appeal which was filed against the decree
which was in her favour. Two applications for being brought on record as heirs
were filed, one by her husband who claimed to be the sole heir, and the other
application which was filed by her nieces and nephews, who claimed on the
basis of a Will executed by Suguna in their favour. The High Court of Andhra
Pradesh directed the Trial Court under the proviso to Rule 5 of Order XXII of
the Code of Civil Procedure to try the said question and submit its findings.
The Trial Court accordingly held an enquiry and submitted a report to the High
Court. However, the High Court did not proceed to determine the said issue as
ig
to who was the legal representative of the said Suguna but proceeded to hear
the main Appeal and decided the same. It is in the said context that the Apex
Court held that the High Court should have decided the said issue firm before
deciding the Appeal, as by not deciding the issue, the Appeal has been
proceeded with against a dead person. However, what is relevant to note in the
context of the present Petition is that there were a competing claims in the said
case.
In the case of M/s. Kanhiya Singh Santok Singh (supra) the facts
were that a decree was passed in favour of the landlord i.e. Kartar Singh on the
ground of bonafide requirement, the said decree was passed at the Appellate
stage as the Trial Court had dismissed the suit in question. Against the said
decree the Defendant tenant Santok Singh had filed a Second Appeal in the
High Court. Pending the Second Appeal, the said Santok Singh died. The sons
of the said Santok Singh namely Man Mohan Singh and Jaswant Singh filed an
case of Jaladi Suguna's case (supra), the facts were that the Plaintiff Suguna
died during the pendency of the Appeal which was filed against the decree
which was in her favour. Two applications for being brought on record as heirs
were filed, one by her husband who claimed to be the sole heir, and the other
application which was filed by her nieces and nephews, who claimed on the
basis of a Will executed by Suguna in their favour. The High Court of Andhra
Pradesh directed the Trial Court under the proviso to Rule 5 of Order XXII of
the Code of Civil Procedure to try the said question and submit its findings.
The Trial Court accordingly held an enquiry and submitted a report to the High
Court. However, the High Court did not proceed to determine the said issue as
ig
to who was the legal representative of the said Suguna but proceeded to hear
the main Appeal and decided the same. It is in the said context that the Apex
Court held that the High Court should have decided the said issue firm before
deciding the Appeal, as by not deciding the issue, the Appeal has been
proceeded with against a dead person. However, what is relevant to note in the
context of the present Petition is that there were a competing claims in the said
case.
In the case of M/s. Kanhiya Singh Santok Singh (supra) the facts
were that a decree was passed in favour of the landlord i.e. Kartar Singh on the
ground of bonafide requirement, the said decree was passed at the Appellate
stage as the Trial Court had dismissed the suit in question. Against the said
decree the Defendant tenant Santok Singh had filed a Second Appeal in the
High Court. Pending the Second Appeal, the said Santok Singh died. The sons
of the said Santok Singh namely Man Mohan Singh and Jaswant Singh filed an
https://www.lawweb.in/2013/09/enquiry-as-to-legal-heirs-factors-to-be.html
