AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this case this Court should interfere under its revisional powers and make the rule in this case absolute. Bisheshwar apparently was substituted in place of Kalikanand, deceased, on the footing that he, in some sense, represented the interest of Kalikanand.
They were both members of a joint Hindu family. Bisheshwar had been a party to the previous action which resulted in the family property being sold up. Kalikanand had not been a party to that action and it is presumed that it was on that footing that he brought this action out of which this application arises. In no sense is a member of a joint Hindu family a representative of a deceased member.
When one member dies his share survives to the other members but they do not obtain by that survivorship the share of the deceased member but their own share is enlarged. They are not representative and certainly not representative in the sense the learned Judge in the Court below seems to have understood the matter.
The rule is made absolute and the order of the learned Judge is set aside with costs; hearing fee one gold mohur.