Rehan Khan
The Rajasthan High Court on 17th August ruled that sisters cannot be regarded as legal representatives of a deceased person, particularly when first-class heirs such as the wife, son, and daughter are still alive. This ruling was delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Garg while adjudicating a tenant eviction case which involved a revision petition filed by the defendant challenging a trial court order.
The trial court had previously allowed an application for the substitution of legal representatives for the deceased plaintiff and rejected the defendant’s plea to abate the case. The defendant-petitioner argued that while the substitution application had been made by the wife, son, and daughter of the deceased, the four sisters of the deceased should also have been included as legal representatives. The defendant further contended that since the property in question was ancestral, the sisters, as co-parceners, should also be recognized as legal representatives.
However, the High Court upheld the trial court’s order, and held that under the law, the sisters do not qualify as legal representatives of the deceased. The court emphasized that only the wife, son, and daughter could be considered for the said role. The Court referred to the definition of “Legal Representative” under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which specifies that a legal representative is someone who, in law, represents the estate of a deceased person.
In light of this legal provision, the Court clarified that the estate of the deceased would naturally be represented by his first-class heirs, namely, the wife, son, and daughter. The Court noted that the petitioner’s counsel failed to cite any legal provision that would require the sisters to be recognized as legal representatives when first-class heirs are present.
Regarding the argument that the sisters, as co-parceners in ancestral property, should be considered legal representatives, the Court stated that the tenant lacked the legal standing to make this argument. The Court noted that such a claim could only be made by the aggrieved legal representatives themselves.
Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Smt. Kherunisa v. LRs of Jai Shiv Singh & Ors.
Case no.: Civil Revision Petition No. 208/2023
Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Garg