In Brief
The deceased Uma Devi obtained a decree for partition of property in 1989. When she died in 1999 before executing the decree, her son-in-law (the appellant) sought to execute it as her legal representative based on her will. The Executing Court permitted this. The High Court in revision set aside the order, finding the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The Supreme Court held that a legal representative's determination under Order XXII Rule 5 is for limited procedural purposes and does not finally settle succession. Since the appellant was the sole claimant and the Executing Court found him competent, he could execute the decree. The High Court had exceeded its revision jurisdiction by acting as an appellate court based merely on a differing view of facts. The appeal was allowed and the Executing Court's order restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.