Substituted legal heirs in a civil suit do not automatically acquire ownership; valid legal authority must be proven for property claims.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. On 29.10.2025, record of Civil Revision No. 38 of 2024 was summoned and the matter was heard at length and record of O.S. No. 341 of 1989, O.S. No. 211 of 1990 and O.S. No. 123 of 2012 were summoned.

2. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the respondent placed before this Court the certified copies of certain documents of O.S. NO. 211 of 1990, the copy of which, in advance, was supplied to Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate as well as to Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel, who appears for the respondent in Civil Revision No. 38 of 2024. The first document is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 9 and 151 of CPC moved by the plaintiffs of Suit on 16.01.2006, giving reference of three persons showing them to be legal heirs of Late Brijmohan Lal Gupta and Ramal Rani in which notices were issued to the so called legal heir of Late Brijmohan Lal Gupta and thereafter an affidavit was filed by one of the so called legal heir, namely, Anil Kumar by giving pedigree of family of “Late Rehtulal” who have two sons Basheshwardayal and Kriparam; Basheshwardayal have two sons, namely, Brijmohal Lal Gupta and Seva Ram and daughter Smt. Sushila Devi and Suhila Devi was having one daughter Rajkumari Ramalrani Gupta; Kriparam was having two sons, namely, Ramratan and Shyamlal; Ramratan have three sons, namely, Aadesh Kumar, Anil Kumar and Pradeep Kumar. The affidavit was supported with two Wills executed by Rajkumari Ramalrani Gupta dated 11.10.1997 and other will of Late Brijmohan Lal Gupta dated 11.10.1997. On the application of plaintiff under Order 22 Rule4 of CPC, the defendant Abdul Gaffur filed an application by raising certain objections that date of death of deceased is not mentioned and so called legal heirs have no locus standi to become party in the proceeding and they are not the legal successor or heir of Late Brijmohan Lal Gupta, and, in such a situation, notices have to be issued to the Administration General of Uttarakhand. The application moved by the plaintiff and the affidavit of Anil Kumar as well as application of the defendant were dealt with by the Trial Court on 20.11.2007 by allowing the application, and to implead the so called legal heirs as defendant in place of Brijmohan Lal Gupta directions were issued to make necessary compliance. Due to non-compliance, ultimately O.S. No. 211 of 1990 was dismissed for want of prosecution and the same was not revived.

3. By showing certified copies of certain documents of O.S. No. 211 of 1990, Mr. Siddhartha Singh submits that Aadesh Kumar, Anil Kumar and Pradeep Kumar, being legal heirs of Brijmohan Lal Gupta became absolute owner of the property in question. He further submits that arguments, as advanced by Mr. Vashistha that respondent/plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord of the property in question is misconceived. Mr. Siddhartha Singh further argued that after O.S. No. 211 of 1990 which was dismissed for want of prosecution, since, legal heirs of Brijmohan Lal Gupta were not substituted, another suit being O.S. No. 123 of 2012 was filed seeking declaration over the property in question owned by Late Brijmohan Lal Gupta by impleading legal heirs of Brijmohan Lal Gupta as defendants. He also pointed out that the legal heirs of Late Brijmohan Lal Gupta, namely, Aadesh Kumar, Anil Kumar and Pradeep Kumar filed one eviction suit against Abdul Gaffur and Mohd. Afzal who earlier claimed adverse possession over the property in question, however, the proceedings of said suit was closed in terms of the compromise entered between the legal heirs of Abdul Gaffur and legal heirs of Late Brijmohan Lal Gupta. Simultaneously, O.S. No. 123 of 2