The Rajasthan High Court has held that sisters cannot be regarded as legal representatives of a deceased individual when first-class heirs, such as the wife, son, and daughter, are still surviving.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg was hearing a tenant eviction case involving a revision petition filed by the defendant challenging the trial court's order. The trial court had permitted the substitution of the deceased plaintiff's legal representatives and dismissed the defendant's application for abatement of the case.

The defendant-petitioner contended that the application for substitution of legal representatives was filed solely by the wife, son, and daughter of the deceased, while the four sisters should have also been included as legal representatives. It was further argued that, since the suit property was ancestral, the sisters of the deceased were also co-parceners and thus legal representatives entitled to be impleaded in the case.

The Court upheld the trial court's findings, ruling that the sisters could not be recognized as legal representatives of the deceased under the law. Only the wife, son, and daughter were entitled to that status, and their inclusion in the case as legal representatives was duly noted.

The Court concurred with the trial court's opinion, stating that its findings were fully consistent with the law. It referred to the definition of "legal representatives" under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which specifies that a legal representative is a person who, by law, represents the estate of a deceased individual.

In the background of this provision, the Court held that,

“In the present matter, essentially the estate of the plaintiff would be represented by his first class heirs which undisputedly would be his wife, son and daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out to any provision of law which prescribes for the sisters to be the legal representatives even where the first class heirs of a deceased plaintiff are surviving.”

Additionally, in response to the argument that the sisters, as co-parceners in the ancestral property, should be considered legal representatives, the Court ruled that the tenant lacked the locus standi to raise such a claim. The Court noted that only the aggrieved legal representatives had the right to bring forth this issue.

Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Smt. Kherunisa v Lrs of Jai Shiv Singh & Ors.