Vs. Man Mohan & Ors  INSC 248 (1 May 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1995 AIR 1653 1995 SCC (5) 431 1995 SCALE (3)680
O R D
respondents - plaintiffs laid a suit on June 5, 1984 in the Court of Senior Subordinate
Judge, Delhi for possession of the suit property
against first defendant Brijmohan Kapoor, deceased husband of the petitioner -
second defendant. Shri Man Mohan s/o Jagmohan Kapoor has now been impleaded to
represent the estate of Brij Mohan Kapoor.
they sought to file additional written statement claiming title to and interest
in the property under a will said to have been executed by Smt. Champawati, the
petition was dismissed by the trial court in suit No.418/84 by order dated
August 6, 1994 holding that "it is not open to the present applicant to
assert her own individual or hostile title to the suit." It was held that
if a legal representative wants to raise any individual point which the
deceased party could not have raised, he must get himself impleaded in his
personal capacity or he must challenge the decree in a separate suit. In that
view she was not permitted to file the additional written statement.
the order, revision was filed in the High Court.
single Judge of the High Court in Civil Revision No.953/94 dated November 11, 1994 dismissed the revision.
contended for the petitioner that both the plaintiff - first defendant and the
petitioners' claims are founded on the will executed by Champawati, where the
first defendant had right and interest for life and the petitioner had right
thereafter and as such she could raise the plea which Brijmohan Kapoor could
have raised in his written statement. The courts below were not right in refusing
to permit the petitioner to file additional written statement.
support thereof, the petitioner placed strong relisance on the judgment of this
Court in Bal Kishan vs. Om Parkash & Anr. AIR 1986 SC p.1952.
seen that the petitioners' claim of right, title and interest entirely rest on
the will said to have been executed by Champawati in favour of the first
defendant and herself. It is now admitted across the Bar that the first
defendant had life interest created under the will executed by Champawati.
Therefore, the said interest is co-terminus with his demise. Whether the
petitioner has independent right, title and interest de hors the claim of the
first defendant is a matter to be gone into at a latter proceedings. It is true
that when the petitioner was impleaded as a party - defendant, all right under
Order 22 Rule 4(2), and defences available to the deceased defendant become
available to her. In addition, if the petitioner had any independent right,
title or interest in the property then she had to get herself impleaded in the
suit as a party defendant in which event she could set up her own independent
right, title and interest, to resist the claim made by the plaintiff or
challenge the decree that may be passed in the suit. This is the view the court
below has taken rightly.
Court in Bal Kishan vs. Om Parkash & Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1952
has said thus:
sub-rule (2) of Rule of Order 22 authorised the legal representative of a
deceased defendant to file an additional written statement or statement of
objections raising all pleas which the deceased-defendant had or could have
raised except those which were personal to the deceased-defendant or
respondent." The same view was expressed in Jagdish Chander Chatterjee
& Ors. vs. Sri Kishan & Anr., 1973 (1) SCR 850 wherein this Court said:
legal representative of the deceased respondent was entitled to make any defence
appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased
respondent. In other words, the heirs and the legal representatives could urge
all contentions which the deceased could have urged except only those which
were personal to the deceased. Indeed this does not prevent the legal
representative from setting up also their own independent title, in which case
there could be no objection to the court impleading them not merely as the Lrs.
of the deceased but also in their personal capacity avoiding thereby a separate
suit for a decision on the title." This being the position in law, the
view of the court below is perfactly legal. It is open the petitioner to implead
herself in her independent capacity under Order 1 Rule 10 or retain the right
to file independent suit asserting her own right. We do not find any error of
jurisdiction or material irregularity committed in the exercise of jurisdiction
by the court below warranting our intereference. The SLP is, accordingly,