1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself, by consent of learned counsel for both the Petitioners and learned counsel for Respondent No.5.

2. As both these Writ Petitions raise the common question of law and are between the same parties and arising out of the same order, they are being decided by this common Judgment.

3. The father of the present Petitioners, namely, Chetan Bulchand Thadhani, his sons Sunil and Haresh, who are the Petitioners herein, were the Partners of the Firm known as M/s. Evergreen Trades and Agencies. Flat Nos.5 and 6, Meenakshi Apartment, 32nd Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050 and the factory premises, namely, the front half portion of the Building on Plot No.I36-A, Mahal Industrial Estate, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai, are the estates of the said Firm. Late Shri Chetan Thadhani, the father of the present Petitioners, and Respondent No.2 and his son, Sunil, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.296 of 2018, had filed a Suit, bearing No.3349 of 1989, for dissolution of the said Partnership Firm and various other reliefs against Haresh, Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13710 of 2017 filed in this Court. In the said Suit, the Court Receiver was appointed by this Court. The Petitioners herein, who are the sons of deceased Chetan Thadhani, were appointed as the 'Agents' of the Court Receiver in respect of the assets of the Partnership Firm. Due to enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bombay, the Suit was transferred to the said Court and it was assigned new number, being Suit No.9812 of 1989. The appointment of Court Receiver, however, continued in the said Suit, as per the order passed by this Court.

4. During pendency of the said Suit, Original Plaintiff No.1-Chetan Thadhani expired and his legal heirs were brought on record and since Original Plaintiff No.2-Sunil and Original Defendant No.1-Haresh were the legal heirs of deceased Chetan Thadhani, their names were substituted as legal heirs of Plaintiff No.1-Chetan. The name of the daughter of Plaintiff No.1-Chetan, namely, Respondent No.3-Komal Suresh Chainani, was also brought on record as Original Defendant No.2. She claimed the property of her father's share in the said Firm, claiming some rights in Flat Nos.5 and 6, which were the part of the assets of the Partnership Firm.

5. During pendency of the Suit, Respondent No.3-Komal Suresh Chainani also expired on 6th November 2012, leaving behind her daughter Respondent No.4-Natasha Prakash Tilokani and her husband Respondent No.5-Suresh Chainani. As per the order passed in Chamber Summons No.1875 of 2014 and another Chamber Summons No.1839 of 2014, the name of her daughter 'Natasha' alone was brought on record as her legal heir and the Chamber Summons for bringing the name of her husband on record came to be rejected. This order was challenged by her husband, namely, Respondent No.5-Suresh in Civil Revision Application No.213 of 2015 filed in this Court. In the said Revision Application, as it was contended that, deceased Komal Chainani had also executed a 'Will', bequeathing her share in the assets of the Partnership Firm in the name of her husband and her daughter, the said Revision Application came to be disposed of, directing Respondent No.5-Suresh Chainani, her husband, to take out a fresh Chamber Summons, enclosing therewith a copy of the 'Will' and the proceedings instituted in this Court on the basis of that 'Will'.

6. In view thereof, the fresh Chamber Summons No.1078 of 2015 was filed before the Trial Court by Respondent No.5-Suresh for impleading him also as legal heir of Respondent No.3-Komal. This Chamber Summons was strongly resisted by the Petitioners herein contending, inter alia, that, as the suit property was inherited by deceased Komal from her father in the presence of her daughter, her husband cannot inherit any rights therein.

7. The Trial Court, however, allowed the said Chamber Summons ho