Where There Is Dispute Regarding Legal Heirs Of Deceased, Trial Court Should Adopt Summary Inquiry Under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC: Jharkhand HC
Trial Court Must Conduct Summary Inquiry Under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC in Case of Rival Legal Heir Claims: Jharkhand High Court
Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has recently clarified that in instances where multiple parties claim to be the legal heirs of a deceased litigant, the Trial Court is mandated to conduct a summary inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The Court emphasized that such an inquiry is essential to determine the rightful legal heir by evaluating whether the "right to sue" or "be sued" survives.
Case Background
The ruling came during the hearing of a petition filed by Diwakar Chandra Pandey against an order passed by a Civil Judge (Senior Division) in a Title Suit. Originally, the suit was filed by Ram Dulari Devi. Following her death in 2017, an individual named Dhruo Shankar Dubey moved an application to be substituted as her legal heir, claiming that the deceased had executed a Will in his favor in 2013.
The Trial Court had allowed Dubey’s substitution application under Order XXII Rule 10. However, the petitioner (the defendant in the original suit) challenged this, arguing that:
- The alleged Will was not annexed to the application.
- The applicant concealed the fact that the deceased left behind four natural daughters and the heirs of a fifth daughter.
Court’s Observations
Presiding over the case, Justice Subhash Chand noted significant procedural lapses in the Trial Court’s approach.
1. On Probate and the Will: The Bench reiterated the settled law that if a legal heir seeks substitution based on a Will, there is no mandatory requirement for probate to proceed with the substitution. However, the Court observed that Dubey had failed to file the Will alongside his initial petition.
2. On Concealment of Natural Heirs: The Court found it troubling that the applicant did not disclose the existence of the deceased's daughters. The Bench noted, "The learned Court below has not taken into consideration... this very material fact that the deceased had also left the natural legal heirs... and also ignored the fact that the Will was not filed along with the application."
3. On Order 22 Rule 5 CPC: The High Court clarified that while the "caption" of an application (citing Rule 10 instead of Rule 5) is not fatal to the case, the substance is. When a dispute regarding legal heirship arises, the Court must follow Rule 5:
"Where there is a dispute in regards to legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff or defendant, the trial court should adopt a summary inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code as to who is the legal heir from the rival claimants."
Final Decision
The High Court labeled the Trial Court's findings as "perverse" for ignoring the existence of natural heirs and the absence of the Will in the application.
The Court held:
- The petition was allowed, and the order dated January 16, 2023, was set aside.
- The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the application afresh.
- The applicant must be allowed to file the Will if not already on record.
- The Trial Court must consider whether the natural legal heirs (the daughters) wish to be substituted as plaintiffs.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Diwakar Chandra Pandey v. Dhruo Shankar Dubey
- Case No.: C.M.P. No. 228 of 2023
- Bench: Justice Subhash Chand
- Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Amar Kr. Sinha, Sandeep Verma, Sumit Kumar
- Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Bhaiya Viswajeet Kumar, Sheo Kumar Singh
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC?
It is a provision that mandates the Court to determine who the legal representative of a deceased party is when a dispute or question arises regarding such status during a suit.
2. What is a "summary inquiry" in this context?
It is a prompt, less formal proceeding where the judge examines evidence (like Wills or succession certificates) to decide on the substitution of parties without conducting a full-blown trial on the issue of heirship.
3. Is probate mandatory for substitution based on a Will?
No. The Jharkhand High Court clarified that for the purpose of being substituted as a plaintiff/appellant in a suit based on a Will, probate is not a mandatory requirement.
4. Why was the Trial Court's order set aside in this case?
Because the Trial Court ignored the existence of natural legal heirs (the daughters) and allowed the substitution of a claimant under a Will that hadn't even been filed with the application.
5. What happens if an application is filed under the wrong section (e.g., Rule 10 instead of Rule 5)?
The Court held that the caption or title of the application is not fatal; the substance and subject matter of the application are what truly matter for the Court's consideration.
6. Who are "natural legal heirs"?
In this context, they are the immediate blood relatives of the deceased (like daughters) who would inherit property under personal law (e.g., Hindu Succession Act) in the absence of a Will.
7. What does "Right to Sue survives" mean?
It means the legal cause of action did not end with the death of the person and can be continued by or against their legal representatives.
8. Can multiple groups of claimants be impleaded?
Yes. The Court suggested that both the natural heirs and the person claiming under the Will should ideally be impleaded to ensure a fair resolution.
9. What did the High Court mean by a "perverse finding"?
A finding is perverse when it is against the weight of evidence, ignores material facts, or is based on an incorrect application of the law.
10. What are the directions for the Trial Court now?
The Trial Court must conduct the inquiry again, allow the Will to be placed on record, and verify if the natural heirs wish to be substituted as well.