CR-7275-2014 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-7275-2014 (O&M).

Decided on: April 22, 2015.

Balwinder Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

Jaswinder Singh and others

..... Respondent

* * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT

Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Ms.G.K.Turka, Advocate,

for the respondents.

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).

The defendant has filed this revision petition

invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 27.8.2014 passed

by the Civil Judge (Sr., Divn.), Rajpura, allowing the application of

respondent Nos.1 to 5 and impleading them as legal heirs of Tej Kaur

plaintiff. It is pertinent to observe here that respondent Nos. 1 to 5

who have been impleaded in place of Tej Kaur plaintiff are the sons

and grand sons of Tej Kaur. Her husband Kirpal Singh has not been

impleaded as legal heir of Tej Kaur. The claim of the defendant-

petitioner is that the trial Court ought to have impleaded the husband

1

RAJ KUMAR ARORA

2015.04.28 12:25

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-7275-2014 (O&M)

of Tej Kaur also as legal representative along with other LRs who are

respondent Nos.1 to 5.

Counsel for the defendant-petitioner has relied

upon judgments Shism Ram and another Vs. Vijender and others,

2010 (3) Civil Court cases 317, and Mahender Nath Vs. Satender

Nath and others, 2010 (3) Civil Court cases 284, in support of his

contentions that when the trial Court impleads LRs of a deceased

party without determining whether they are actually the

representatives of the deceased, the said action is illegal. Judgment

in Mahender Nath's case (supra) has been relied upon to submit

that when there is controversy regarding the impleadment of LRs on

the basis of natural succession or on the basis of Will then all the

parties may be impleaded as LRs of the deceased.

Counsel for the respondents has submitted that Tej

Kaur had filed a suit for declaration challenging revenue entry in

favour of defendant-petitioner Balwinder Singh by the revenue

authorities, defendants Nos.2 & 3, and that the property in dispute

belongs to the father of Tej Kaur, as such being a female, the

inheritance would be governed by Section 15 of the Hindu

Succession Act, which reads as follow: -

“15. General rules of succession in the

case of female Hindus. -

(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate

shall devolve according to the rules set out in

section 16,-

2

CR-7275-2014 (O&M)

(a) Firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including

the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter)

and the husband;

(b) Secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) Thirdly, upon the mother and father;

(d) Fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) Lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in

subsection (1),-

(a) Any property inherited by a female Hindu from

her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence

of any son or daughter of the deceased (including

the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter)

not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section

(1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs

of the father; and

(b) Any property inherited by a female Hindu from

her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve,

in the absence of any son or daughter of the

deceased (including the children of any pre-

deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs

referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified

therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.”

3

CR-7275-2014 (O&M)

It has been argued by the counsel for the

respondents that since the property vesting in Tej Kaur could not

devolve upon her husband Kirpal Singh, as such, her sons and grand

sons had moved an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC to be

impleaded as LRs of Tej Kaur as the objective of impleadment of LR