H.C. Pandey vs G.C. Paul on 28 April, 1989
It is settled
position of law that when the estate devolves on the legal
heirs/legal representatives consequent to the death of the
predecessor-in-interest the legal heirs/legal representatives take
the estate as joint tenants with unity of interest, title and
possession of the estate in them. The estate that devolved on the
legal heirs/legal representatives is one in interest, title and
possession with each of the legal heirs/legal representatives
having right over every inch of the estate as co-owners. That
means, every legal heir/legal representative represented every
inch of the joint estate. This position is declared by Supreme Court
in the decisions in H.C Pandey Vs. G.C Paul (AIR 1989 SC
1470) and Harish Tandon Vs. Addl. Dist. Magistrate,
W.P.C.No.18315 of 2010
: 5 :
Allahabad, O.P & Ors. (AIR 1995 SC 676). That means, even if
it is assumed that petitioner acquired mental disability in the year
1987 and was not thereafter represented by guardian, the worst
that can be said is that she was not a party to the proceedings
after 1987. That does not in any way affect the decree or
subsequent proceedings since it bound the estate of deceased
defendant No.1 and which was represented by the other legal
heirs/legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1. The
principle of substantial representation would apply in such a
situation (See decisions in N.K Muhd.