RANJIT SINGH SETHI Vs. RANBIR SINGH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Original Appeal under Chapter-II Rule-5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant against the order dtd. 7/9/2022 of the Joint Registrar (Judicial), whereby the application bearing I.A. No. 6407/2022 preferred under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 by one Smt. Jayanti, seeking impleadment of herself in the present suit, was allowed.

(2.) The present suit seeks partition and permanent injunction qua the estate of deceased Shri Mehtab Singh Sethi comprising of property bearing Khasra No. 2165/1523/4, 2275/1519 and 2276/1519 measuring 15,876 square yards situated in Revenue Estate of Village Tughlakabad, H-Block, Gali No. 16, Ratiya Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062. The plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 alongwith the defendant nos. 3 & 4 are the sons of the deceased Shri Mehtab Singh Sethi, whereas the defendant nos. 5 & 6 are the daughters of the deceased Shri Mehtab Singh Sethi; the defendant no.2 is the wife of the deceased Shri Mehtab Singh Sethi. The suit is premised on the basis that Mehtab Singh Sethi died intestate on 13/4/2012 leaving behind the parties to the instant suit as the only surviving legal heirs to inherit his estate. In I. A. No. 6407/2022, the applicant/Smt. Jayanti Sethi avers that she is the lawfully married wife of the deceased Mehtab Singh Sethi having been married to him on 24/9/1976. The said marriage is stated to have been duly registered with the Registrar of Marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(3.) It is asserted in I.A. 6407/2022 that the defendant no.2, Mrs. Mary Sethi, the first wife of the deceased Shri Mehtab Singh Sethi, had deserted the deceased and left for United Kingdom and she never returned to India. Thereafter, the deceased disinherited Mrs. Mary Sethi, the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 3 to 5 from his property and executed the Will dtd. 25/12/2009 in favour of the applicant/Smt. Jayanti Sethi in respect of all his properties. Significantly, the said Will has also been referred to in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 and 6. The said defendant nos. 1 and 6 had taken an objection in the written statement with regard to the non-impleadment of the applicant/Smt. Jayanti Sethi, since according to the said defendants, the applicant/Smt. Jayanti Sethi is a necessary party to this proceeding.