(1.) The dispute in all the four suits under decision relates to the estate of one Jagannath Prasad Gupta. All the four suits have been consolidated and Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 has been treated as the leading case in which the evidence has been recorded. For the sake of clarity, the plaintiffs of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 shall be referred to as 'plaintiffs' and the plaintiffs in the remaining Testamentary Suit Nos. 2 of 1992, 3 of 1992 and 5 of 1992 shall be referred to as 'defendants'. The plaintiffs in Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 was Shiv Charan Lal Gupta son of Late Lalai Ram and Kamta Prasad Gupta alias Kalloo son of late Bhole Nath.Shiv Charan Lal Gupta died during the pendency of the case and his legal heir Smt. Manorama Devi (daughter) has been substituted in his place. Jagannath Prasad Gupta was the resident of Allahabad and died on 14-11-1988. He was Hindu by religion and had no issue. His wife predeceased him on 30-4-1986. The plaintiff of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 claim themselves to be the agnates of the deceased. The following pedigree has been given in the petition (plaint) of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 revealing the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased. The next of the kin of the deceased are mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint who are the cousin brothers and nephews of the deceased.
(2.) As per the case of the plaintiffs of testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992, the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta was a businessman and was a member of Joint Hindu Family of Madho Ram. Together with the plaintiffs, besides others as per the pedigree set forth above, he was allotted his share in the properties of the said family partitions on 2-2-1940. He did not adopt any one till his death and died intestate. So, plaintiffs claiming themselves to be the cousin brothers of the deceased have alleged that they are entitled to the whole of the estate of the deceased as being agnates and preferential heirs in the list of agnates according to S. 8, clause (c) read with S. 12 Rule 1 and S. 3 (1) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They have, therefore, prayed for the grant of Letters of Administration through their attorney in respect of the whole estate of the deceased Jagannath Prasad Gupta.
(3.) On notices being issued, a caveat was entered by a common application made by Ram Vishal Gupta and his wife Smt. Vijai Laxmi. Simultaneously, an application was also made by them under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with S. 151 C.P.C. seeking their impleadment in the said Testamentary case. By order dated 20-8-1991, this Court held that separate application for impleadment was not necessary. The caveat had been followed by a counter affidavit sworn by Ram Vishal Gupta. It has been treated in the nature of objection. Since Vijai Laxmi did not file any objection or affidavit after instituting the caveat, the caveat filed by her jointly with her husband was discharged under order dated 20-8-1991. So, resistance has been offered in this Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1992 by Ram Vishal Gupta. Ram Vishal Gupta is himself the petitioner (plaintiff) in Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1992. Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1992 has been filed by his wife Vijai Laxmi and the Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 1992 has been instituted by Bharat Lal and his wife Uma Devi. Bharat Lal is the own brother of Ram Vishal Gupta.