High CourtsDivision Bench(1929) 02 MAD CK 0028

Subramania Pillai and Another vs Venkatachalam Pillai

Madras High Court · Decided on 22 February 1929 · Citation: AIR 1930 Mad 740

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramesam, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 205 words

Ramesam, J.—Plaintiff 1 and plaintiff 2 were legatees under a will. The Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar refused to register the will. Plaintiff 1 filed this suit for registration. Such a suit must be regarded as one filed in a representative capacity as, if the will is finally registered, all the legatees (and not merely plaintiff l) will get the benefit.

2.

Plaintiff 1 then died. Plaintiff 2 is certainly entitled to continue the suit as one of the persons represented by plaintiff 1. Only in that sense can he be the legal representative of plaintiff 1. But as to the specific rights of plaintiff 1 under the will, he may not be the legal representative. In fact defendants 1 and 2 say they are the legal representatives of plaintiff 1 so far as his particular rights are concerned. This matter is left open. Plaintiff 2 may be the legal representative only for continuing the suit, but at present we cannot say he is the legal representative in respect of plaintiff 1''s particular right. This is probably what was meant by the Subordinate Judge but his language is apparently inconsistent. I have now made the matter clear. There will be no order as to costs.