GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 04.01.2013, whereby the Trial Court allowed the application under Order I, Rule 10 of CPC filed by respondents no. 3 & 4; they were impleaded as plaintiffs no. 1(c) and 1(d) in the suit instituted by one Mr. Gurcharan Singh (deceased plaintiff) for declaration and partition.

(2.) The deceased plaintiff passed away on 24.09.1991. He was survived by his wife, two sons and two daughters. For the sake of brevity, the two sons (petitioner and respondent no. 5 herein) shall be referred to as brothers and the two daughters (respondents no. 3 & 4 herein) as sisters, hereinafter. Upon the damage of the deceased plaintiff, an application for substitution as LRs was filed on 17.10.1991. In the said application, the names of all the aforesaid legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff were disclosed. During the pendency of the said application, the wife of the deceased plaintiff too passed away i.e., on 07.05.1995. The application for substitution as LRs was allowed on 27.01.1997 but only the brothers were substituted as LRs of the deceased plaintiff.

(3.) In the application for impleadment, the sisters had submitted that though the aforesaid application dated 17.10.1991 disclosed the names of the all the legal heirs including theirs but since at that time they were married and were not in a position to conduct the case, they had informed their brothers to not get them impleaded in the suit. It was further submitted that the brothers had obtained their signatures on already prepared applications and affidavits, assuring them that they would not be impleaded in the suit; that they were under the bona fide impression that the brothers were prosecuting the case diligently and they (sisters) would get their respective shares upon partition of the suit property; that thereafter, they started getting evasive replies from their brothers and therefore, a legal notice dated 08.01.2010 was sent to them; that Mr. Harmohan Singh (one of the brothers) gave a reply to the said legal notice and stated that there was a settlement between all the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff by which the sisters had relinquished their shares in favour of their mother and the two brothers; that in view of this reply, the sisters came to know that a consent preliminary decree dated 28.04.2000 had already been passed in the suit; that they never relinquished their shares in the suit property and that fraud was played upon by the brothers in the earlier application for substitution as LRs wherein it was mentioned that the sisters were not claiming their shares; that they became aware of the same when they inspected the court file; that the order dated 27.01.1997 allowing substitution as LRs did not hold that the sisters had relinquished their shares in favour of the brothers. It was finally submitted that the alleged relinquishment was not by way of a registered relinquishment deed or any other registered document. Consequently, the sisters sought their impleadment in the suit.