JATINDER PAL SINGH Vs. GURPREET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of applications being I.A. 6139/2005 and I.A. 9103/2005, under Order VII Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code(CPC), for rejection of plaint.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for deciding the applications are that according to the plaintiff, the suit plot being a built up property of 2488 sq. yds. situated at F-67, Radio Colony, Delhi-110009 was purchased from one Mrs. Eva Fateh Masih through a sale deed dated 29.07.1954 by two brothers S. Harbhajan Singh and S. Pritam Singh. S. Harbhajan Singh was the father of defendants 4 to 7 and the S. Pritam Singh, his brother and father of defendant No.1. The suit further avers that S. Harbhajan Singh died on 10.08.1967, at the time he had bequeathed, through a Will dated 15.09.1964 his half share in the property equally in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant.

(3.) The plaintiff claims that the Will of S. Harbhajan Singh was probated on 28.05.1971. However, a petition for revocation of the probate was filed. After contest, it was dismissed on 11.12.1998. The defendant No. 7, who was the petitioner seeking revocation filed an appeal before this Court. The appeal was later withdrawn on 30.10.2001. As a consequence, the plaintiff became entitled to 1/4th share in the entire property measuring 622 sq.yds. It is averred that in the meanwhile defendants 3 to 7 were impleaded as a legal heirs of S. Harbhajan Singh in a partition suit pending the lower court. According to the plaintiff, the suit was decreed on 21.01.1983 in his absence though he was a necessary party in view of the probate granted in 1971. It is claimed that on coming to know about the proceeding, the plaintiff filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC on 02.09.1983 for being impleaded as a defendant in the above suit for partition; the application was allowed on 03.01.1986. It is alleged that the second defendant, Smt. Satnam Kaur, the other 1/4th owner of the suit property, never moved any application for her impleadment and expressed her election to abandon the rights in the property in the suit in various judicial proceedings. The plaintiff claims that the defendants 3 to 7 were aggrieved against the order dated 06.03.1986 impleading him in the partition suit. The revision petition was entertained and the trial court's order was subsequently stayed. It is claimed that on 28.03.2003, revision petition of the said defendants was dismissed.