The objections raised by the respondents to the LR implead petition are nothing but formal objections which the court will ignore provided the application was filed following the proper procedures of law.

You don't have to be so serious about it, the court will ignore such objections and would pass orders to implead the LRs of the deceased as substitution.

As far as the present application is concerned the power of attorney agent can very well file it on behalf of the principal.

The court will not reject the petition filed under order XXIII rule 23 however insofar as the Will is concerned, you may better get it validated by transferring the revenue records enforcing the Will.

It is not mandatory to get probate of Will under Christian law.

Not justified 

2) legal heirs can inherit property and taje proceedings to set aside settlement deed 

3) not justified objection mother is mentally fit 

File rejoinder 

act as per your lawyer advice 

You need to appoint a lawyer and if any lawyer is already on record he will file detailed reply objections on the above facts. The above facts are correct but needs to be properly put forth through legal language before court 

The best way to handle objections to CPC 22 is:

• Emphasize your legal status as rightful heirs and valid POA holder with supporting documents (death certificate, will, POA).

• Reject defendants’ claims denying locus standi of US citizens/OCI holders—Indian law permits inheritance and representation by heirs regardless of nationality.

• Challenge defendants’ contradictory stance on your parents’ health—point out their prior acknowledgment and your parents’ incapacity at signing.

• Document mental and health harm caused by defendants to establish hardship.

• Use your uncle or an Indian advocate to represent via video/hearing on your behalf since wife cannot attend.

• Court generally allows cases to continue for deceased plaintiffs under CPC 22 with proper proof.

This protects your right to proceed despite objections and remote representation constraints.

I have reviewed all the objections raised by the defendants to your CPC 22 application, along with your family circumstances, the nature of the settlement deed obtained in 2023, the ongoing litigation in Mavelikkara, and the recent passing of your father. I am giving you a clear and strategic reply that you can directly use before your advocate.

The defendants’ objections are legally weak, predictable, and raised only to delay the case. They do not prevent you from continuing the suit as legal heirs, nor do they require you or your mother to travel to India.

Your uncle, as POA holder, can validly represent all of you.

The objection that you lack locus standi is completely baseless. Under Indian law, when a party dies during litigation, the widow and children automatically step into his place as Class-I legal heirs. Filing CPC 22 to substitute legal heirs is not optional—it is mandatory. The defendants cannot stop it and have no right to challenge it unless they can prove that you are not legal heirs, which is impossible.

The claim that US citizens cannot inherit property in India is legally incorrect. Foreign nationals and OCI cardholders can fully inherit residential and commercial property in India. You are not purchasing property—you are inheriting it. A Power of Attorney holder is permitted to act for foreign heirs in civil litigation, and courts approve this routinely.

Their attempt to question your mother’s health actually strengthens your case. If they now claim she is mentally impaired, they are admitting that she lacked full capacity when they obtained the settlement deed in 2023. This supports your allegation that the deed was obtained by fraud, coercion, and undue influence. They themselves arranged nurses for your parents, which clearly shows they were aware of their vulnerability and exploited it.

Their assertion that your family suffered no hardship is factually false. Your parents were misled, pressured, and manipulated. Valuable property and trees are being destroyed during the case, causing ongoing loss. Harassment and emotional stress caused to your elderly parents also constitute hardship. These are valid grounds to proceed.

There is no requirement for the plaintiffs to physically appear for CPC 22 proceedings. Your mother can be fully exempted based on medical incapacity. You and your siblings can join through video conference if the court requires verification. Your POA holder can handle all filings, affidavits, and hearing appearances. There is no legal basis for the court to insist on your travel.

The will executed by your father is a very strong piece of evidence, because it shows his true intention was for the property to go to his children. This contradicts the settlement deed and supports your claim that it was not signed out of free will.

To handle the objections strategically, your advocate should file a simple but firm written reply stating:

• the widow and children are Class-I heirs and therefore entitled to continue the case
• the POA holder has full authority to act on behalf of the heirs
• FEMA and RBI rules permit inheritance by foreign citizens and OCI cardholders
• the defendants’ own objection shows the mother’s diminished capacity, which invalidates the settlement deed
• property damage and coercion clearly show hardship
• the case cannot be dismissed at this stage

There is no requirement for you to travel to India. You should continue litigation through your POA and proceed with the commission to stop the defendants from cutting trees or altering the property. If needed, I can help you draft the reply to objections, the exemption request for your mother, and the application for video-conference appearance for the children.If you wish to contact us, you may do so on https://qrco.de/syslaw

Defendants’ objection under CPC 22 is not justified. As legal heirs (wife and children), you have full locus standi to continue the case under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC after your father’s death.

US/OCI citizenship does not bar inheritance or representation. Under FEMA (Non-Resident Indian/OCI rules), foreign citizens of Indian origin can inherit property in India. So this objection is legally invalid.

The mental health and undue influence argument actually strengthens your case, as it shows your parents lacked free consent under Sections 16 and 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872  making the settlement deed voidable.

The claim that you have no hardship or injury is false  loss of ancestral property and mental distress clearly show injury.

The objections raised by the defendants are largely defensive tactics. As legal heirs (wife and children), you do have the right to continue the case under Order 22 CPC after your father’s death. Being U.S. citizen or OCI holder does not bar you from inheriting residential property in India. The defendants’ claims about locus standi, citizenship, and health are not strong legal grounds to dismiss your petition—they are issues the court will examine, but they do not negate your rights as heirs.

STRATEGIC LEGAL OPINION ON DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO CPC 22 APPLICATION

1. Nature and Validity of Defendants’ Objection That “Petition Is Not Maintainable / False / No Locus Standi”

Your Position Is Strong.
When a plaintiff dies during the pendency of a civil case, CPC Order 22 clearly allows the legal heirs to step in and continue the case.
In your matter:

• The wife (surviving spouse)

• The children (legal heirs under Indian succession laws)
  are the natural and lawful successors to continue the litigation.

The defendants’ objection that you have “no locus standi” is legally unsustainable because:

• Legal heirs automatically step into the shoes of the deceased under Order 22.

• A duly executed Power of Attorney in favour of the uncle gives him authority to represent you in court.

• Courts permit POA holders to continue proceedings, especially when heirs reside abroad.

This objection appears to be purely dilatory, meant to delay proceedings and frustrate your claim.

2. Objection That “US Citizens Cannot Acquire Property in India and Cannot Represent the Estate”

This objection is legally incorrect.

Important Legal Position:

• Foreign citizens (including US citizens) cannot purchase agricultural land in India.

• But they can inherit, receive through bequest/will, or take by succession any kind of property, including land.

• They can also represent the estate in legal proceedings.

• An OCI holder can inherit all categories of property.

In your case:

• Your father acquired the property legally, and his heirs (wife and children) inherit it under succession law.

• Inheritance is allowed regardless of citizenship status.

• As legal heirs, you are fully entitled to challenge any fraudulent or coerced transfer of your parents’ property.

• The wife is an OCI holder, further strengthening your position.

So, the defendants’ claim that US citizens cannot inherit or represent the estate is legally baseless and should be strongly countered.

3. Objection Regarding the Mental Condition of the Deceased Wife or the Elderly Parents

This is a self-contradictory and opportunistic claim by the defendants.

Important legal points in your favour:

• If the defendants now claim mental incapacity, it directly invalidates the original settlement deed which they obtained from your parents.

• They cannot argue that your mother lacked capacity now but was suddenly competent at the time of execution of the settlement deed.

• Courts treat such contradictory arguments as suspicious and manipulative.

Your side should emphasise:

• The defendants themselves arranged caregivers, proving they were aware of poor health and vulnerability.

• The settlement deed was executed while the parents were not fully capable, which strengthens your challenge.

This objection actually helps your case, not theirs.

4. Objection That “Plaintiffs Have Not Suffered Injury or Hardship”

This is factually and legally false.

You can respond with:

• The defendants’ act of coercing, manipulating, and exploiting vulnerable elderly parents is itself grave injury.

• The ongoing acts such as cutting trees, selling wood, exploiting the land, despite pending litigation, establish continuing harm.

• The mental agony, financial exploitation, and deterioration of your parents' health are clear indicators of serious hardship caused by defendants.

This objection must be strongly rebutted as a deliberate misrepresentation.

5. Can You Avoid Traveling to India? Can Children Represent Through Video?

Yes.
Since the wife cannot travel due to health conditions and children reside abroad:

• The children as legal heirs can be impleaded and continue the case.

• The court may permit video conferencing appearances under settled law (Supreme Court directions on VC access).

• Your POA holder (uncle) can represent you physically in court.

• Medical certificates and proof of residence abroad will further justify non-appearance.

Your physical presence in India is not mandatory for continuation of the case.

6. What Is the Best Strategy to Handle Defendants’ Objections?

Your counterstrategy should include these key points:

1. File a detailed counter-affidavit to the objections, explaining:

   • Legal heirs’ right under Order 22

   • Validity of POA

   • Inheritance rights of foreign citizens

   • Contradictions in defendants’ mental-capacity argument

   • Acts of encroachment, cutting trees, and continued damage

2. Emphasise the urgency due to senior citizens, ongoing property damage, and the death of your father.

3. Seek video conferencing permission for heirs unable to travel.

4. Highlight the fraudulent nature of the settlement deed, including manipulation and coercion.

5. Request strict interim orders stopping the defendants from:

   • Cutting trees

   • Changing physical condition of the property

   • Creating third-party rights

   • Selling assets or timber

6. Request expedited hearing, especially since elderly parties and estate protection are involved.

7. Final Position

Every objection raised by the defendants appears to be:

• Legally weak

• Factually incorrect

• Intentionally dilatory

• Contradictory to their own conduct

Your case is on strong legal footing, especially because:

• You are legal heirs under succession laws

• Inheritance by foreign citizens is fully permitted

• Mental health issues of parents invalidate the settlement deed

• Physical damage to property strengthens your need for interim protection

• POA is valid

• Courts encourage VC participation for NRIs and persons with medical difficulties

You should proceed confidently with your CPC 22 continuation application and immediately file a well-structured counter-affidavit addressing each objection.