RAGHUWAR Vs. JANKI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order dated 8-1-1980, passed by the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 13-A/78.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the wife of Janki Prasad--non-applicant, filed a suit for partition of the agricultural land and the houses against Raghuwar, alleging that the applicant and her father were real brothers and they are the owners of half share each in the disputed property. The plaintiff, that is to say the wife of the non-applicant is the only daughter of her father, who is now no more. Therefore, she is entitled to get the disputed property partitioned. The defendant-applicant denied the plaint allegations. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff expired. The husband, i. e. the non-applicant, filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for bringing himself on record in place of the deceased as her legal representative. This application was contested by the defendant, Haying that according to Section 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the non-applicant cannot be the legal representative of his wife. The learned lower Court allowed the application and ordered that the name of the non-applicant be brought on record in place of the deceased plaintiff. Against that, the present revision is filed. If the non- applicant is a heir of his wife, or if he can get the property left by his wife, then alone, his name can be substituted in place of the deceased. But, if he is neither the heir of the deceased, nor he can claim any interest in the property left by her, he cannot be made a party as a legal representative of the deceased only because he may be termed as an intermeddler with the property of the deceased. This takes me to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 15 is with respect to general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. Section 15 reads as under :-

(3.) Therefore, the result is that taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, I must hold that the non-applicant has no interest whatsoever in the property in dispute, because that property the deceased wife got from her father. Neither the non-applicant is in actual possession of the property in dispute. Therefore, he cannot be said to be an intermeddler also. That being the ease, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned lower Court cannot be maintained. The name of the applicant cannot be substituted in place of his deceased wife.