K. Narasimhan (Decd.), K. ... vs K. Rajagopal on 22 July, 2002
In my opinion, the principles laid down in the said decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that the appellants had been impleaded only as legal heirs of Rukmani Ammal in the execution stage and not on the basis that they got absolute right under the will. They have also specifically raised a defence by filing a counter stating that Rukmani Ammal had no right to sell the property as she had only life interest and they got absolute right in the property, and any order passed in the said O.P. against the Rukmani Ammal cannot be enforced against them. The learned trial Judge while disposing of M.P.No.1791/1984, unfortunately, contrary to the facts and defence raised, proceeded as if no defence was raised even by Rukmai Ammal stating that she had only life interest in the property and she has no right to execute the sale deed by alienating the property. On that basis, the learned trial Judge found that the appellants herein are bound to execute the sale deed as per the orders passed in the said O.P. But the trial court has not decided the dispute raised by the appellants regarding their independent right. The trial court failed to appreciate even the affidavit filed by the tenant regarding the rights of the parties. In the said affidavit, the tenant had specifically admitted that Rukmani Ammal had only life estate. Aggrieved against that order the appellants filed an Appeal in Eject. Appeal No.7/1986. In the said appeal, the learned Appellate Judge had taken note of the pendency of the civil proceedings in O.S.No.2129/87 and also found that any order in the Appeal would be subject to the result of the suit. But unfortunately he had dismissed the Appeal. Hence C.R.P.No.1503/91 was filed. The learned Judge of this Court, in view of the pendency of the civil suit and order of status-quo passed in the suit, found that he need not entertain the Revision as the rights of the parties have to be decided in the civil forum. The above said orders will clearly establish that the orders passed against the appellants who were impleaded as Legal Representatives of Rukmani Ammal are only subject to the result of the civil suit which is the subject matter in this Second Appeal. So, the contention that the proceedings, after impleading the appellants as legal representatives, have become final and so those orders passed in O.P.No.63/1973 are binding on the appellants cannot be countenanced.