CHAMAN LAL Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of civil revisions Nos. 375 and 376 of 1976 against the identical orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge dated 21st October 1975. By these orders the trial court decided the application of Mohan Lal dated 10.4.1985 under section 151 read with Order 22 rule 3 and Order 1 rule 10 C.P,C,

(2.) In these applications Mohan Lal, who was a defendant in a suit filed by Rajinder Kumar, his brother and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, his mother, had alleged that Rajinder Kumar, plaintiff, died on 10-9-1972 leaving behind Smt. Shakuntala Devi widow of Rajinder Kumar who was suspected to be the murderer of her husband but has since been acquitted of the charge of murder on 23.4.1974 and is in a position to represent her husband in the above mentioned suit. It is further alleged in the application that Chaman Lal, his brother had made an application that he should be substituted as plaintiff in the above mentioned case. It was also alleged that under the Hindu Succession Act he is not the lawful heir or successor to his brother Rajinder Kumar in the presence of the widow Smt. Shakuntala Devi. It was in these circumstances, prayed that Smt. Shakuntala Devi who is widow of Rajinder Kumar and has not remarried is the rightful heir of the deceased Rajinder Kumar and should be brought on the record,

(3.) A reply was filed to this application by the petitioner Chaman Lal dated9.10.1975. In this reply it was averred that Smt. Shakuntala Devi no doubt was the wife but was instrumental in bringing about the murder of her husband Rajinder Kumar deceased. She was charged and challagd but given benefit of doubt. She was not purged of her complicity in the offence. She had played active and malignant hostility to the deceased and she is not entitled to succeed him. It was also alleged that it was because of unchastity that she brought about the murder of her husband and she is living an unchaste life. It was further submitted that the order of substitution of Chaman Lal had already been passed by the Court and that order has become final and operates as res judicata over the present controversy.