With Other Heirs Not Contesting Will, Karnataka HC Lets Legatees Join Specific-Performance Suit To Prove Their Claims

The petitioners challenged the Trial Court’s order rejecting I.A. No. 38, an application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC to bring them on record as legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1 in a suit for specific performance.

Their claim was based on a registered Will dated 22 November 2019.

The other legal heirs had been brought on record, and defendant No. 3, also a legatee, was already a party in his independent capacity.

The Trial Court had regarded the Will as doubtful and considered that impleadment could result in multiplicity of proceedings.

Whether legatees under the Will could be treated as legal representatives of the deceased defendant and brought on record under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application on the grounds that the Will was doubtful and impleadment could lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

Order XXII Rule 4 CPC provides for substitution of a deceased defendant’s legal representative.

Section 2(11) CPC defines “legal representative” broadly; in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275, the Supreme Court held that a legatee may fall within that extended definition.

A legatee seeking to claim rights under a Will must prove the Will’s genuineness and establish the rights claimed under it.

Applying the broad definition of “legal representative,” the Court held that the petitioners, as legatees under the Will, could be considered legal representatives of the deceased defendant.

The petitioners’ entitlement under the Will remained subject to proof; however, that evidentiary burden did not justify refusing to bring them on record.

Without impleadment, they would be unable to establish the Will and the rights claimed under it in the suit, potentially generating further proceedings.

The Trial Court therefore erred in treating doubt about the Will and possible multiplicity of proceedings as grounds to reject the application.

It allowed I.A. No. 38 and permitted the applicants to be impleaded as additional defendants.

The Trial Court was directed to expedite the matter and dispose of the suit within one year from the next hearing; the petitioners undertook not to seek unnecessary adjournments.