BABASAHEB YESHWANT ANANDRAO PATIL Vs. MANJULABAI BALWANT GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, takes exception to the order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, S. D. , Kolhapur dated 4-11-1993 below Ex. 67 in Misc. Civ. Appln. No. 217 of 1986.

(2.) THE said application was moved by the respondent No. 1 herein, Sow. Vimal Babasab Killedar, being legal heir and representative of Smt. Manjulabai w/o Balwant Gaikwad, for impleading her in the main petition (Ex. 1) as the legal heir of the opponent No. 1 therein, viz. deceased Manjulabai Balwant Gaikwad, who had expired during the pendency of the main proceedings. The main proceedings, are stated to be still pending before the Civil Judge, S. D. , Kolhapur, being M. C. A. No. 217 of 1986, instituted by the present petitioner, claiming for probate under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, being the legatee under the Will dated 23-10-1985 executed by Nanibai the second wife of deceased Balwant Gaikwad. The main petition was contested by Manjulabai, the first wife of Balwant Gaikwad. However, as aforesaid, Manjulabai died during the pendency of the main proceedings. The respondent No. 1 herein Vimal Babasab Killedar asserts that she has been made legatee under the Will executed by the deceased Manjulabai dated 16-8-1991. The respondent No. 1, therefore, applied for impleadment in the main proceedings as heir and legal representative of deceased Manjulabai. The said application was allowed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 4-11-1993.

(3.) BY the present petition, Mr. Paranjpe appearing for the petitioner contends that the order under challenge totally overlooks the mandate of provisions contained in section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. He submits that the said provision postulates that only the person interested in the estate of the deceased would be entitled to contest the proceedings and none else. Reliance is placed on section 283 (1) (c) of the said Act to buttress this submission. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1 on the other hand strenuously contends that; since deceased Manjulabai, impleaded as opponent No. 1 in the main proceeding had expired, but having executed Will in favour of respondent No. 1 that entitled the respondent No. 1 to contest the proceedings, as she had stepped into the shoes of Manjulabai as legal representative of the deceased Manjulabai and can be said to have interest in the estate of the deceased.