Adopted son – Legal representative – Eviction petition

-

 



 

Shubham Budhiraja[1]

A filed a suit for eviction against B, tenant. While the suit was pending, A died. C, his son, filed application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, 1908 seeking right to sue as legal representative. The tenant objected to this on the ground that C is not legal heir and his name cannot be substituted. He is an adopted son and there is no adoption deed. The Ld. Trial Court dismissed the tenant’s objection. The Hon’ble High Court affirming the trial court’s order held as under[2]:

 

1.    Order XXII Rule 3 CPC prescribes procedure in case of death of sole plaintiff or in case of death of one of the several plaintiffs and provides that on such death, the right to sue shall survive to the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff.

 

2.    If one goes through the averments made in the eviction petition, it would lay bare that in the petition itself, the landlord had claimed that suit-shop, which is in possession of the tenant, was bonafidely required by landlord for his son.

 

3.    The Tenant seems to confuse between the two terms „legal representatives‟ and legal heirs.

 

4.    It is a not case where some stranger has been portrayed as son of the deceased-petitioner.

 

5.    It is also not a case where some imposter is being brought in as legal representative.

 

6.    The definition of “legal representative” is wide enough to cover Mr. B who now seems to represent the estate of deceased landlord and for the purpose of present lis has sufficient and adequate interest in carrying on litigation.


[1] Shubham Budhiraja, Advocate [LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)], Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com

[2] Delhi High Court, CM(M) 3613/2024, Judgment dated 15/10/2024

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relationship must
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2]   (i)             
Read more

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors, (2003) 5 SCC 23 The legislati
Read more