Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. This civil revision application raises an interesting issue arising out of a matter relating to substitution of legal representatives of deceased-plaintiff under Order XXII, Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure in short "CPC". Heirs of plaintiff by half blood have moved this Court in civil revision against the impugned order by which heirs of full blood of the plaintiff have been substituted. The petitioners before this Court are asserting that even, though they are heirs of half blood, they have to be preferred In heirs of full blood which on the first flush seems to be quite a preposterous proposition. Both sets are represented before this Court Shri Pushkar Narain Shahi, Advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and Shri Wasi Akhtar, Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of the contesting opposite parties. Heard the parties.

2. Before coming to grips with the legal issue, it is necessary to give out the salient facts appropriate for the decision of this Court. The plaintiff Banarsi Devi, who died on 4.12.2002 and the matter in relation to substitution of her legal representatives is the question, instituted the present suit being Title Suit No. 142 of 1996 and pending before Sub-Judge I, Sitamarhi alleging that her widow mother Gulbadan Devi being wife of Ram Pragas Thakur had dedicated some land to deities and after her death, her daughtr-in-law Ramphal Devi, wife of Brajraj, the son of Ram Pragas Thakur acted as Sewait till her death (Ramphal Devi) on 1.12.1995 and. thereafter, the plaintiff claiming to be the sister of Brajraj and the successor-in-interest of that branch of the family claimed that she had inherited both dedicated and personal properties of the branch of Rain Pragas Thakur. It was further asserted that the sole defendant Alok Ranjan. who was the natural son of Shyam Nandan Thakur, was claiming to have gone in adoption to Ramphal Devi by deed of adoption dated 17.6.1994, the said document was forged and fabricated and should be declared to be such. The plaintiff, accordingly, prayed for declaration and confirmation of possession and title over the scheduled lands. The defendant Alok Ranjan appeared, filed a written statement asserting that he was the legally adopted son of Ramphal Devi and, as such, was entitled to succeed to the properties of Brajraj and Ramphal Devi and that he had the title and possession over the scheduled lands. To appreciate the relationship, now accepted, genealogical table of the family is given hereunder:

Sheo Thakur died 1916 _____________________________ | | 1st wife=Jagtaran dead 2nd wife=FUII Kumari dead ____________________ | | Ram Pragash Thakur Ram Angya Thakur Triveni Thakur dead 194 dead dead 1968 wife Gulbadan Devi-dead _____________ _______________ __________________________ | | | | | | Brajraj Banarsi Devi Raj Mangal Jai Mangal Sliyam Nandan Thaku Ram Singari dead 1970 Plaintiff dead dead Petitioner No. 2 Devi ______________ =wile Ramphal died on Govind Takur | | | Petitioner No. 1 Devi 4.12.2002 Substituted as | Manoj Alok died 1.12.1995 heir of plaintiff | Thakur Ranjan (OP1) Chitranjan Thakur (Defendant) substituted as (In adoption heir of plaintiff to Ramphal Devi (OP 2) 17.6.1994)

3. The original plaintiff Banarsi Devi died on 4.12.2002 issueless. On 9.12.2002, Govind Thakur and Chitranjan Thakur, who are the grandsons of the paternal uncle of Banarsi Devi, filed a joint petition for their substitution as plaintiffs in place of the original plaintiff Banarsi Devi. By order dated 25.1.2003, the trial Court substituted Govind Thakur and Chitranjan Thakur as plaintiffs in the suit in place of original plaintiff Banarsi Devi (since dead). The said Govind Thakur and Chitranjan Thakur are opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in the instant revision application. On 1.2.2003, that is within the period of ninety days from the death of original plaintiff Banarsi Devi, Shyam Nandan Thakur filed a petition for substitution in place of original plaintiff. S