Legal Heir Disputes: Jharkhand HC Mandates Summary Inquiry for Fair Representation
Pranav B Prem
The Jharkhand High Court, in Diwakar Chandra Pandey v. Dhruo Shankar Dubey, emphasized the necessity for trial courts to adopt a summary inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) when disputes arise regarding the legal heirs of a deceased party in a suit. Justice Subhash Chand delivered the judgment while setting aside the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division-VII, Palamau, in Title Suit No. 102 of 2008.
Case Background
The dispute originated from a substitution application filed by Dhruo Shankar Dubey under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, seeking to be substituted as the sole plaintiff in place of the deceased original plaintiff, Ram Dulari Devi, based on a will allegedly executed in his favor. However, objections were raised by the defendant, Diwakar Chandra Pandey, on grounds that:
1. The will was not annexed to the substitution application.
2. The deceased plaintiff had natural legal heirs, including four daughters and legal heirs of a deceased daughter, who were not accounted for in the application.
Despite these objections, the trial court allowed the substitution application without considering the non-disclosure of all legal heirs or the absence of the will.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court scrutinized the impugned order and highlighted several critical lapses by the trial court:
1. The trial court failed to consider that the deceased plaintiff left behind four daughters and legal heirs of a deceased daughter, whose rights as natural heirs were not addressed.
2. The substitution application did not include the will, and this omission was overlooked by the trial court.
3.The Court emphasized that where there are rival claims regarding legal heirship, the trial court must conduct a summary inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC to ascertain the rightful legal representative. The absence of such an inquiry rendered the trial court's decision defective.
Legal Principles Discussed
Justice Subhash Chand referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, which clarified the broad scope of "legal representative" under CPC. The Court underscored that a legal representative includes heirs as well as individuals who intermeddle with the estate of the deceased, irrespective of title. The High Court further reiterated that in cases involving disputes over legal heirship:
1. A summary inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC is essential.
2. Both natural heirs and claimants under a will must be considered in the inquiry to ensure fairness.
Directions Issued
The High Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial court to:
1. Reconsider the substitution application after allowing the applicant to file the will, if not already on record.
2. Assess whether the natural legal heirs intend to pursue substitution and note their position in the order.
3. Ensure a fair and comprehensive determination of the rightful legal representative through a summary inquiry.
Cause Title: Diwakar Chandra Pandey v. Dhruo Shankar Dubey
Case No: C.M.P. No. 228 of 2023
Date: December-05-2024
Bench: Justice Subhash Chand
[Read/Download order]
