SHAILESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. LALITA PANDEY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is directed against an order dated 16.10.2018 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar rejecting application 14-Ga in SCC Suit No.16 of 2017 thereby declining permission to the revisionist for being impleaded as co-plaintiff. The suit was instituted by respondents no.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') seeking eviction of respondent no.3 (for short 'the tenant'). The plaintiffs claimed that they became landlord of the premises in occupation of the tenant in pursuance of a registered Will deed dated 4.5.1999 executed by erstwhile owner-landlord Munna Lal Bharti @ Munna Lal Pandey. According to them, as per recital contained in the said Will, shop no.1, which is the disputed premises, would fall in the share of his son Umesh Kumar Pandey and widowed daughter-in-law Smt. Vandana Pandey (plaintiff No.2). Since Umesh Kumar Pandey had died on 31.7.2015, therefore his widow- Lalita Pandey (plaintiff No.1) inherited his share. According to the plaintiffs, the revisionist was not given any share in shop no.1, nor he is entitled to be impleaded.

(2.) On the other hand, the revisionist claimed that under the Will he inherited equal share alongwith his brother Umesh Kumar Pandey and sister-in-law Smt. Vandana Pandey. Consequently, he filed application 14-Ga seeking his impleadment as plaintiff No.3.

(3.) The trial court, after considering the recitals in the Will deed, held that the rental income is to be distributed between Smt. Vandana Pandey and son Umesh Kumar Pandey and not the revisionist herein and accordingly, rejected the impleadment application.