JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Siddhartha Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Since, these two appeals involve common issues, therefore, both appeals are being decided together with this common judgement.

3. The F.A.F.O. No.524 of 2020 has been preferred by Ram Paras and others, who have been substituted as legal heirs of late Tilakdhari who was defendant no.1 in Original Suit No.427 of 1991, challenging the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Maharajganj whereby, it has allowed application (55Ga) filed by respondent no.4-Smt. Runa Devi in Civil Appeal No.29 of 2009 for impleading her under Order 22 Rule 10 of C.P.C. as assignee of late Gyani Devi, who was the plaintiff in Original Suit No.427 of 1991.

4. F.A.F.O. No.525 of 2020 has been preferred by Dilip Kumar, who was defendant no.2 in Original Suit No.427 of 1991, against the same order i.e. order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Maharajganj.

5. For the sake of convenience, facts are being delineated from F.A.F.O. No.524 of 2020.

6. The brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Gyani Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') instituted Original Suit No.427 of 1991 for declaring the 'Will' dated 12.09.1985 executed by late Ram Adhare Das (husband of the plaintiff-Smt. Gyani Devi) in favour of Dilip Kumar, (defendant no.2 in the Original Suit No.427 of 1991) void. The plaintiff further prayed for a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property and a decree of cancellation of the sale deed executed by Dilip Kumar (defendant no.2) in favour of Late Tilakdhari (father of the appellants). Tilakdhari had died during the pendency of the suit, and therefore, the legal heirs of Late Tilakdhari, who are appellants in the present appeal, were substituted.

7. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff contending interalia that the suit property was owned by Late Ram Adhare Das, who died on 13.11.1985. It was further pleaded that Dilip Kumar (defendant no.2) was not the son of the Late Ram Adhare Das and Ram Adhare Das has not executed any 'Will' dated 12.09.1985 in favour of Dilip Kumar.

8. The suit was contested by the appellants as well as Dilip Kumar contending interalia that Dilip Kumar is the son of Late Ram Adhare Das who had executed a 'Will' dated 12.09.1985 in favour of Dilip Kumar, and hence, a sale deed executed by Dilip Kumar in favour of Late Tilakdhari (father of the appellants) in respect of suit property is as per law.

9. The trial court on the basis of pleadings between the parties framed several issues. On the issue as to whether Dilip Kumar (defendant no.2) was the son of the Late Ram Adhare Das, the trial court after appreciating the evidence on record held that Dilip Kumar is not the son of the Late Ram Adhare Das, rather he is the son of one Udit Das, who was the brother of Late Ram Adhare Das. The trial court found merit in the case of the plaintiff. Accordingly, it vide judgement dated 08.09.2009 decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring the 'Will' dated 12.09.1985 void, and consequently, it also held the sale deed void. However, the trial court refused to grant a decree of permanent injunction.

10. The present appellants preferred Civil Appeal No.29 of 2009 challenging the judgement and decree dated 08.09.2009 passed by the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff-Gyani Devi died. After the death of the Late Gyani Devi, the appellants filed an application 34Ga for making an endorsement 'since deceased' after the name of the Late Gyani Devi.

11. Application 34Ga was contested by respondent no.4 Smt. Runa Devi claiming herself to be the daughter of the Late Gyani Devi on the ground that application 34Ga was not maintainable.

12. The trial court vide order dated 01.09.2016 allowed the application 34Ga and permitted the appellants to make necessary corrections in the memo of c