Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Tuesday, 11 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-02-08 allowed

Mahanth Satyanand @ Ramjee Singh vs Shyam Lal Chauhan and Others

Bench: 2 — N.V. Ramana

In Brief

Two spiritual leaders claimed to be the legal representative of a deceased appellant in a pending property dispute case before the High Court. Instead of determining which person was the actual legal representative, the High Court allowed both claimants to participate in the appeal. The Supreme Court held this was incorrect. Under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must first definitively determine who is the legal representative of a deceased party before proceeding with the substantive hearing. The determination cannot be postponed or both claimants allowed to participate simultaneously. The Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for proper determination of the legal representative question.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Civil Procedure Succession and Inheritance Appellate Procedure Order 22 Rule 5 CPC Legal Representative Procedure and Jurisdiction

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login