IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Sarabjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
Surinder Mohan Tarun - Respondent
CS(OS) 1418 of 2010 & I.As. 3210 of 2022, 17178 of 2023, 21704 of 2023, 22504 of 2023, 22505 of 2023, 22506 of 2023, 25820 of 2023, O.A. 84 of 2023
Decided On : 15-01-2024
Legal Heirs - Substitution of Legal Heirs - Order XXII Rule 4 r/w Order I Rule 10 & Section 151 of CPC, 1908 - [I.A. 6723/2022, I.A. 10026/2022, I.A. 19418/2022, I.A. 21703/2023] - The court allowed the application for substitution of legal heirs of the deceased defendant, finding that the applicants were the Class-II legal heirs and entitled to be impleaded as the legal heirs. The court dismissed the application for conducting an inquiry to ascertain the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, as the Class-II legal heirs had already filed an application. The court also dismissed the applications filed by other claimants, stating that they were not necessary and proper parties to the present suit and were at liberty to pursue their independent remedy by way of a separate litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed applications to be substituted as legal heirs of the deceased defendant, claiming themselves to be his Class-II legal heirs. The plaintiffs contested the application, and other claimants also filed applications asserting their rights as legal representatives of the deceased defendant. The suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff for possession of the suit property, claiming to be the owner based on documents including a Will dated 15.03.1982.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application for substitution of legal heirs, finding the applicants to be the Class-II legal heirs of the deceased defendant. The court dismissed the application for conducting an inquiry to ascertain the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, as the Class-II legal heirs had already filed an application. The court also dismissed the applications filed by other claimants, stating that they were not necessary and proper parties to the present suit and were at liberty to pursue their independent remedy by way of a separate litigation.
Issues: Substitution of legal heirs, entitlement of applicants as Class-II legal heirs, necessity of conducting an inquiry to ascertain legal representatives, and the status of other claimants as necessary and proper parties to the present suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicants were entitled to be impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased defendant as Class-II legal heirs. The court also found that there was no merit in conducting an inquiry to ascertain the legal representatives, as the Class-II legal heirs had already filed an application. Additionally, the court dismissed the applications filed by other claimants, stating that they were not necessary and proper parties to the present suit and were at liberty to pursue their independent remedy by way of a separate litigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for substitution of legal heirs, dismissed the application for conducting an inquiry to ascertain the legal representatives, and dismissed the applications filed by other claimants, stating that they were not necessary and proper parties to the present suit and were at liberty to pursue their independent remedy by way of a separate litigation.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
I.A. 6723/2022 (u/O XXII Rule 4 r/w Order I Rule 10 & Section 151 of CPC, 1908 by applicant/Ved Vyas, Special Power of Attorney Holder of surviving legal heirs of the deceased defendant for bringing the applicants as the legal heirs of the deceased defendant on record)
1. An application has been filed by the applicants to be substituted as legal heirs of the deceased defendant Surendra Mohan Tarun, claiming themselves to be his Class-II legal heirs.
2. It is submitted in the application that the defendant was a bachelor and he died in Safdarjung Hospital on 16.11.2021. The applicants are all the cousin brothers and sister of the deceased. They had performed the last rites of the deceased and are entitled to be impleaded as the legal heirs. The application is supported with a family tree which shows that Sh. Basant, father of deceased defendant Surendera Mohan had three brothers namely Shri Kotu Ram Gupta who died on 01.01.1969, Shri Surinder Dass who died before partition and Late Shri Teerth Ram who died on 07.06.1967. The applicants are the son and daughters of Late Shri Teerth Ram and Late Shri Kotu Ram Gupta.
3. The plaintiffs have contested the application who have submitted that the applicants have not placed on record any documentary evidence or material in support of their assertions. They are not entitled to be impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased defendant.
4. Ms. K. Jeevan Rita Murthy, has also filed an application for substitution and has also filed a detailed reply denying the right of the applicants to be impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased defendant.
5. Submissions heard.
6. It is an admitted fact that Surinder Mohan Tarun, defendant had died on 16.11.2021 as a bachelor and has no Class-I legal heirs surviving him. He was the only son of his father Late Shri Basant who had died before the partition. Therefore, it is evident that there is no Class-I legal heir of defendant Surinder Mohan Tarun.
7. The applicants as per the Family Tree chart attached along with the application, are the legal heirs of the two brothers (Shri Teerth Ram and Shri Kotu Ram Gupta) of the father of deceased defendant late Shri Basant. They are, therefore, the Class-II heirs in Category-VII, there being no other legal heir in the categories from I to VI of Class-II legal heirs.
8. They are, therefore, impleaded as the defendants being Class-II legal heirs of deceased defendant Surinder Mohan Tarun.
9. The application if accordingly allowed. Amended memo of parties be filed by the plaintiff within fifteen days.
I.A. 10026/2022 (u/O XXII Rules 4 & 5 of CPC, 1908 by applicant/plaintiff for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased defendant)
10. An application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff for bringing on record the LRs of deceased defendant.
11. It is submitted in the application that the application had been moved on behalf of the applicants/legal representatives of the defendant to be substituted as the Class-II legal heirs. The plaintiff asserted that he has no knowledge about the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased defendant. He also is not aware if the application in I.A.6723/2022 are genuine or not. A prayer is, therefore, made to direct the Subordinate Court to conduct any inquiry to ascertain the legal representatives of the deceased defendant.
12. Submissions heard.
13. There is no merit in the application of the plaintiff for conducting an inquiry to ascertain the legal representatives of deceased defendant, since the application I.A.6723/2022 has been filed by the Class-II legal heirs of the deceased defendant.
14. There is no merit in the application which is hereby dismissed.
I.A. 19418/2022 (u/O XXII Rule 4 r/w Order I Rule 10 & Section 151 of CPC, 1908 by applicant/K. Jeevan Rita Murthy for his substitution as legal representative of deceased defendant and bring him on record)
I.A. 21703/2023 (u/O I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 by applicant/Shambhu seeking his impleadment
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of Class-II legal heirs to be impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased defendant, and the dismissal of applications by other cl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for the court to determine the legal representative of a deceased party when a dispute arises, as per Order 22 Rule 5 of ....
Merely because the evidence of respondent/defendant and Prabhakar Rao (PW-2) was not repeated all over again, it cannot be held that the appellant/ plaintiff could be non-suited on this ground.
Point of Law : Code of Civil Procedure enjoins various provisions only for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and for adjudicating of related disputes in the same proceedings, the pa....
Substitution – If any legal heirs of a party in suit comes to be substituted on the basis of Will as plaintiff/appellant in a suit, for the same, there is no requirement of Probate.
The main legal point established is that legal representatives are entitled to implead themselves and continue a suit under Order XXII Rule 9 C.P.C, and that rules and procedures should serve the cau....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.