IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2925 of 2011 Between: Anjanamma & 2 others .. Petitioner AND P. Shobha Devi & 7 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2925 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Respondents 7 and 8 were stated to be not necessary parties to the petition and though notices were served on respondents 1 to 6, none entered appearance on their behalf. 2. The civil revision petition is directed against the orders passed in I.A.No.286 of 2010 in O.S.No.12 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, dated 23.06.2011, by which the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 9 were recognized as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant as against the application filed by the revision petitioners in I.A.No.286 of 2010 to recognize them alone as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant by virtue of the registered Will executed by the first defendant on 21.07.2009. While the relationship of the parties with the deceased is not in dispute, the first respondent to I.A.No.286 of 2010 opposed the application on the ground that the Will is false and fabricated and was not executed by the deceased. Alternatively, it was contended that even if a Will was there, it has to be proved in accordance with law during the course of trial and the revision petitioners cannot straight away claim to be the legal heirs. 3. The trial Court had, in fact, passed an order in the first instance allowing the application filed by the revision petitioners recognizing them as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant, but again passed an order opining that all the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant, namely the wife, the daughters, the sons and the wife and children of one deceased son are already on record and they have to be recognized as the legal representatives, while the claim of any rights through a Will can be decided during trial subject to proof of the Will. 4. The grievance of the revision petitioners is that the view taken by the trial Court is opposed to the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard and the claim of the revision petitioners under the Will ought to have been decided at this stage itself to consider as to who has to be recognized as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant and represent his estate. 5. The point for consideration is whether I.A.No.286 of 2010 ought to have been decided on merits by the trial Court for determining as to who should represent the estate of the deceased first defendant in the suit as his legal representatives. 6. In JALADI SUGUNA (DEAD) THROUGH L. RS. VS. SATYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST AND OTHERS[1], the husband of the deceased claimed the original party to have died intestate and that he was the sole legal heir, while the nieces and nephews of the deceased claimed the suit property under a bequest under a Will. There was a dispute, thus, as to who were the legal representatives of the deceased and without determining the competing applications for being brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased, even after getting a finding from the trial Court on the directions of the High Court, the High Court proceeded to hear the appeal itself and decided the appeal. The Apex Court observed that the mere filing of an application to bring the legal representatives on record does not amount to bringing them on record and until a decision by the Court in that regard, the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have no right to represent the estate of the deceased or prosecute or defend the case. The Apex Court, therefore, laid down that only when the question of legal representative is determined by the Court and such legal representative is brought on record, it can be said that the estate of the deceased is represented though the determination is for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased for adjudication of the case which will not confer on the person, held to be the legal representative, any right on the property which is the subject matter of the suit, vis-à-vis, the rival claimants to the estate of the deceased. The Apex Court consequently concluded that the appeal can be heard only after the legal representatives are brought on record, as otherwise it will amount to hearing the appeal against a dead person. The Apex Court, accordingly, directed the High Court to first decide the dispute between different persons claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased party, bring the persons entitled on record as the legal representatives and then only hear and decide the appeal on merits. 7. The principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case and on the competing claims of the parties herein, the trial Court could not have relegated them to the trial of the suit for determination of the existence of the Will and the consequential rights flowing therefrom or the persons entitled to be brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant in the absence of proof of the Will. The matter, therefore, has to go back to the trial Court for such determination as held by the Apex Court. 8. Therefore, the order in I.A.No.286 of 2010 in O.S.No.12 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, dated 23.06.2011, is set aside and the said I.A.No.286 of 2010 in O.S.No.12 of 2008 is remitted back to the trial Court for determination on merits in accordance with law after every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties including every reasonable opportunity for the parties to produce any oral and documentary evidence which they may desire to produce in this regard during the enquiry into the application. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 14th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2925 of 2011 Date: 14th September, 2011 KL [1] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2866