The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of challenging the will of a deceased predecessor-in-interest and the principle of lis pendens in cases of alienation of suit property during the pendency of a civil suit.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

The plaintiff instituted civil suit No. 207/1 of 1994 before the learned trial Court wherein he claimed for a pronouncement, of a declaratory decree rendered in civil suit No. 207/1 of 1994, being declared null and void, it being a nullity given it being rendered against a dead person. During the pendency of the suit, an application cast under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, was, filed before the learned trial Court, wherein the plaintiff sought pronouncement of relief of ad-interim injunction, for, during the pendency of the civil suit, the defendant/non-applicant being restrained from making interference(s) upon the suit land. The learned trial Court directed the parties to till a decision being recorded upon SLP No. 8824 of 2008, hence maintain status quo with respect to suit Khasra Nos. 51(4- 06), 123(0-19), 140(1-02), 169(0-16),175(0-08), 176(0- 08), 177 (0-18), 179 (0-07), 180 (0-07),181 (0-19), 182 (2-04), 186(0-10),188(0-16),189 (0-10),193(0-08),194/1 (0-02), 196 (5-16), 220 (8-08), 248 (0-01), 249 (0-06), 250 (3-00), 252 (1-13), 255 (0-09), 256 (0-01), 258 (0- 14), 260 (0-02), 262 (1-01),263 (1-04), 265 (1-08),268 (6- 04), 269 (2-18) and 272 (0-16). Tritely, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned trial Court has extantly attained affirmation uptil the Hon’ble Apex Court. The defendant/non-applicant being aggrieved by rendition of order(s) of status quo rendered in respect of suit Khasra Nos. 51(4-06), 123(0-19), 140(1-02), 169(0-16),175(0- 08), 176(0-08), 177 (0-18), 179 (0-07), 180 (0-07),181 (0-19), 182 (2-04), 186(0-10),188(0-16),189 (0-10),193(0- 08),194/1 (0-02), 196 (5-16), 220 (8-08), 248 (0-01), 249 (0-06), 250 (3-00), 252 (1-13), 255 (0-09), 256 (0-01), 258 (0-14), 260 (0-02), 262 (1-01),263 (1-04), 265 (1- 08),268 (6-04), 269 (2-18) and 272 (0-16), hence therefrom motioned the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court allowed the defendants’ appeal, also it set aside the orders’ pronounced by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff has instituted the instant petition before this Court.

2. Though, the learned counsel has vociferously contended before this Court, that the judgment and decree pronounced in civil suit No. 207/1 of 1994, titled as Tulsi Ram versus Kanshi Ram, lacking any virtue of validity, it being pronounced, despite, the learned trial Court, on demise of the plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest, also the predecessor-in-interest of co-defendants No. 3 to 6, being seized, with an application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, also despite the name of the plaintiff herein occurring therein alongwith the names of co-defendants No. 3 to 6, for, all being substituted in his place, yet the learned trial Court inaptly merely on the statement of the counsel concerned, of, deceased co defendant No. 3 bequeathing his estate vis-à-vis co-defendant(s) No. 3 to 6, hence proceeded to order for their substitution in place of deceased co-defendant Kanshi Ram, “whereas” the aforesaid Kanshi Ram had not made any testamentary deposition(s) nor he had constituted thereunder codefendants No. 3 to 6 as his legal heirs. However, the aforesaid submission is only made before this Court also is not bedrocked upon any averment in consonance therewith existing in the plaint, thereupon it is rejected.

3. Reiteratedly, also in the plaint, the plaintiff has, not, challenged the will of deceased predecessor-in-interest Kanshi Ram, whereas the aforesaid onslaught being made thereon was imperative, for hers disabling co-defendants No. 3 to 6, to on demise of one Kanshi Ram, beget to her exclusion their substitution in his place in the array of codefendants. Contrarily, the plaintiff has contended that the decree is vitiated, it, being rendered against a dead person, whereas with the purported deceased coming to, on his demise, hence substituted by co-defendants No. 3 to 6 thereupon also renders the aforesaid submission to capsize. Even