CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Order XXX Rules 8 & 10 r/w Section 151 — Hindu Undivided Family — Representation — Karta — Determination of locus standi — Where respondent claimed himself successor Karta of plaintiff-HUF on death of original Karta and produced documentary evidence (death certificate, bank passbook naming him as Karta, Aadhaar establishing relationship) — Petitioners alleged original Karta alive and respondent stranger — Held, material on record established death of original Karta in 2006 and respondent being son — Successor Karta entitled to represent HUF — Objections overruled and I.A. dismissed.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Order XXX Rules 8 & 10 r/w Section 151 — Hindu Undivided Family — Representation — Karta — Determination of locus standi —
Where respondent claimed himself successor Karta of plaintiff-HUF on death of original Karta and produced documentary evidence (death certificate, bank passbook naming him as Karta, Aadhaar establishing relationship) — Petitioners alleged original Karta alive and respondent stranger — Held, material on record established death of original Karta in 2006 and respondent being son — Successor Karta entitled to represent HUF — Objections overruled and I.A. dismissed.
(I.A.No. 4 of 2025 in A.S.No. 1385 of 2000, decided on 08-12-2025, per V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

A. Factual Background

1. The plaintiff is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) — M/s Devraj Choudhary & Sons, originally represented by Karta D. Shantilal Choudhary.

2. Suit for specific performance (O.S.No. 4/1990) decreed on 11-03-1997.

3. A.S.No.1385/2000 was filed by defendant K. Sankar Reddy.

4. During pendency, appellant died and his legal heirs (petitioners herein) were brought on record on 18-03-2025.

5. On 04-01-2022, S. Suresh Choudhary filed vakalat claiming to represent the HUF as successor Karta.

6. Petitioners dispute locus; respondent asserts original Karta died on 03-01-2006, producing supporting documents.

B. Core Legal Issues

1. Whether S. Suresh Choudhary is competent to represent the plaintiff-HUF?

2. Whether the petitioners’ challenge is tenable when documentary evidence exists and their counsel earlier did not object

C. Respondent’s Evidentiary Position

Respondent filed:

• Death certificate of D. Shantilal Choudhary (03-01-2006).

• IndusInd Bank passbook indicating the HUF account showing respondent as Karta.

• Aadhaar card evidencing his filial link with original Karta.

Court also noted:

• Personal notice issued after restoration was served on respondent, not deceased Karta.

• Petitioners earlier never objected to respondent’s representation before restoration orders.

D. Judicial Findings

• The Court held that death of original Karta is proved.

• Respondent is son of deceased Karta, therefore successor Karta under Hindu law.

• Respondent is representing HUF, not claiming individually.

• Petitioners’ contention that original Karta is alive was unsupported and untenable.

• Petitioners benefited from restoration proceedings where respondent’s counsel did not object, amounting to acquiescence.

Hence, objections overruled.

E. Applicable Legal Principles

1. A Hindu Undivided Family is a continuing juristic person.

2. Karta succession is automatic on death, especially where eldest capable male member steps in.

3. When documentary evidence supports status, objections without rebuttal lack merit.

4. Conduct of parties matters — acquiescence and procedural participation weaken later objections.

CONCLUSION

The High Court concluded that:

• The original plaintiff-Karta D. Shantilal Choudhary died in 2006.

• Respondent S. Suresh Choudhary is his son and successor Karta, supported by documentary evidence.

• He is entitled to represent the HUF in appeal proceedings.

• Petitioners’ challenge was without basis, contrary to record and prior conduct.

Accordingly, the interlocutory application seeking determination of locus standi was dismissed, and respondent’s representation was upheld.