Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

legal representative' means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued;
The expression "legal representative" as defined in CPC means a person who represents the estate of a deceased, and-includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The definition is inclusive in character and its scope is wide and it is not confined to legal heirs only instead it stipulates a person who may or may not be heir, competent to inherit the property of the deceased but he should represent the. estate of the deceased person. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". If there are many heirs, those in possession bona fide, without there being any fraud or collusion, are also entitled to represent the estate of the deceased. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramanno v. Natini Bai Naique , 1591. It is to be noted that even the Hon'ble apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court has defined the meaning of "legal representative" where the word legal representative means all the legal representatives of the deceased. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Muniyammal v. Addl. ITO has held that all the legal representatives should concur in applying the copies of statement to the ITO and further, it has also held as under:
6. The appellant has been showing 1/3 share of rental income received from the properties which originally belonged to late Smt. Kanthi Prabhakar (wife of Sri A.Y. Prabhakar) and late Smt. Padhmavathi Ammal (cousin of Sri A.Y. Prabhakar). Smt. Kanthi Prabhakar made a Will on 31st Dec., 1986 vide which all her movable and immovable properties devolved equally on her two sons namely, Sri Raghunandan Prabhakar and Sri Ravindran Prabhakar. She expired on 15th Dec., 1990. Similarly, Smt. Padmavathi Ammal wife of late Sri K. Ramalingam made a Will on 27th Oct., 1993 willing all her movable and immovable properties to her cousin Sri A.Y. Prabhakar and his two sons namely Sri Raghunandan Prabhakar and Sri Ravindran Prabhakar equally. She died on 18th April, 1994. Her husband predeceased her and she did not have any children. Sri Prabhakar was appointed as the sole executor of both the Wills. However, these Wills were never probated. Therefore, both these ladies are to be treated as having died intestate. Accordingly, their properties were distributed as per the relevant provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. According to these provisions, Sri A.Y. Prabhakar, Sri Raghunandan Prabhakar and Sri Ravindran Prabhakar being the only persons to succeed to the properties are bound to divide the properties equally among themselves. Sri A.Y. Prabhakar, Sri Raghunandan Prabhakar and Sri Ravindran Prabhakar have been showing 1/3 share of rental income from the properties which originally belonged to Smt. Kanthi Prabhakar and Smt. Padmavathi Ammal. The AO, however, has assessed the 1/3 share of the appellant, Sri A.Y. Prabhakar on protective basis because according to him Sri A.Y. Prabhakar was not entitled to any share of rental income from the properties belonging to both the ladies mentioned above. Besides this, I find that the AO has reopened the assessments of the estate of (late) Smt. Kanthi Prabhakar and the estate of (late) Smt. Padmavathi Ammal for asst yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98. In my order of even date in ITA Nos. 133/2004-05 and 134/2004-05 dt. 28th Sept., 2005, I have held that no assessment can be made on the estates of both these ladies. Since the estate of both Smt. Kanthi Prabhakar and Smt. Padmavathi Ammal has been distributed among the legal heirs/beneficiaries, only these legal heirs/beneficiaries are entitled to the income therefrom. I, therefore, direct the AO to assess the 1/3 share from rental income arising out of the house properties which were originally belonging to Smt. Kanthi Prabhakar and Smt. Padmavathi Ammal substantively in the hands of the appellant and not on the protective basis. With this, objection of the appellant that the same income is stated to have escaped in the hands of more than one person is also met. This income is now to be assessed at only one place, i.e., 1/3rd each in the hands of Sri A.Y. Prabhakar, Sri Raghunandan Prabhakar and Sri Ravindran Prabhakar.