(1.) THIS is an application filed on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased?plaintiff Dr. (Mrs.) Shashi Ahuja under Order XXII Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC for impleadment. The plaintiff Dr. (Mrs.) Shashi Ahuja is stated to have died on 13th September, 2007 and her death certificate has been enclosed with the application. The plaintiff left behind her the following legal representatives:- (i) Shri Shyam Sunder Ahuja ? Husband of the plaintiff (ii) Shri Aseem Ahuja ? Son of the plaintiff (iii) Shri Paawan Ahuja ? Son of the plaintiff (iv) Ms. Ruchi, wife of Shri Sumit Khattar ? Daughter of the plaintiff
(2.) REPLY to the above application has been filed by the defendants No. 1 to 3, opposing the application on the ground that after the death of the deceased?plaintiff, the cause of action does not survive in favour of her legal representatives. It is further denied that the husband of the deceased?plaintiff, Mr. Shyam Sunder Ahuja is also one of the legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased?plaintiff. It is submitted that since the property in question belonged to Shri Chaman Lal Malik and thereafter was owned by his wife, late Smt. Kamlavati, the deceased mother of the deceased?plaintiff, the issue of inheritance of the same would be governed by Section 15 of the hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, that Sub-Section (2) (a) of Section 15 provides that, if, any property is inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother it 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 specified in Sub-Section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father. In the instant case, it is further stated, a perusal of the order dated 20th December, 2005 passed by this Court shows that the Will claimed to have been executed by late Smt. Kamlavati Malik dated 20th October, 1996 in favour of the deceased?plaintiff Dr. (Mrs.) Shashi Ahuja is being challenged by the defendants on the ground that it is not duly attested. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 20th December, 2005 is reproduced hereunder:-
(3.) RELIANCE is also placed by the learned counsel for the defendants/non-applicants on a judgment of the Gauhati High Court Smt. Dhanistha Kalita vs. Ramakanta Kalita and Ors. AIR 2003 GAUHATI 92 to urge that the source from which a female Hindu dying intestate inherits the property is always important and that would govern the situation. Otherwise, persons who are not even remotely related to the person who originally held the property, would acquire rights to inherit that property.