ASIM KUMAR CHATTARAJ Vs. SANKAR PRASAD CHATTARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Rajlaxmi Devi before her death had executed a will. She had bequeath all her immovable properties in favour of the two Petitioners, her close relatives. One Sri Nirmal Kumar Chattaraj was appointed as executor. The will was duly registered. The executor died on December 15, 1986 before he could apply for grant of probate. The Petitioners being the beneficiaries of the said will applied for grant of letters of administration, giving rise to Misc. Case No. 87/2001 which is pending consideration before the learned Civil Judge, Lalbagh, Murshidabad. In the said Misc. Case, the Petitioners impleaded the opposite parties 1 and 2 as well as opposite parties 4 and 5 as Respondents. After service of process, they have entered appearance but have not filed their respective objections to the application for grant of letters of administration.

(2.) On or about February 17, 2003, the opposite party No. 3 filed an application for addition of party under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the Code) read with Section 151 thereof praying for his impleadment as Respondent in the said misc. case. It was alleged therein that he had acquired some interest in the estate of the testatrix by way of purchase from the opposite party No. 2 and one Sri Aditya Kumar Chattaraj and, therefore, he ought to be heard before the Court grants relief as prayed for, if at all. According to him, the contents of the will were not explained to the testatrix and without understanding the same, she had been compelled to execute it in the presence of the attesting witnesses. It was further averred in the application for addition that the opposite party No. 3 has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Lalbagh, Murshidabad against, inter alia, the Petitioner No. 1 herein as principal Defendant and the State of West Bengal being the proforma Defendant and that the Petitioner No. 1 being the Defendant No. 1 in the said suit is contesting the same by filing his written statement.

(3.) The learned Judge upon hearing the parties, vide order No. 15 dated July 2, 2005, allowed the application for addition based on his opinion that the opposite party No. 3 had substantial interest in the property that was the subject of the said misc. case by dint of purchase. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue Bihar, 1963 AIR(SC) 786 the learned Judge was further of the view that opposite party No. 3 is a proper party and if he is not allowed to be impleaded, his interest is likely to be affected by the result of the said misc. case.