PARASHMAL JAIN AND ANOTHER Vs. GAYA PRASAD PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common point of law having involved in both these revision petitions, these are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Civil Revision No. 3 of 1989 arises out of the order passed in Title Suit No. 42 of 1982 instituted by the original plaintiff, Anandi Devi Poddar (since dead). Civil Revision No. 246 of 1989 arises out of the order passed in Title Suit No. 6 of 1984 which was also instituted by the same plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff of both the suits, namely, Smti Anandi Devi Poddar, having died during the pendency of the suits, an application for substitution was filed by Gaya Prasad Poddar claiming himself to be the heir/legal representative of deceased plaintiff in both the suits. Objection was raised by each of the defendants of the suits urging the common point that Gaya Prasad Poddar was not the heir/legal representative of the deceased plaintiff Smti Anandi Devi Poddar, as she died childless. But Gaya Prasad Poddar, who was appointed as constituted attorney of late Anandi Devi Poddar, made an application stating that he was the adapted son of late Anandi Devi Poddar, the plaintiff (deceased) and as such, he should be allowed to be substituted in place of deceased plaintiff in both the suits. Gaya Prasad filed 2 documents of adaptation in support of his claim that he was adapted by the plaintiff as her son. The learned Munsiff being satisfied from the materials on records that Gaya Prasad was the adapted son of the deceased plaintiff, by the impugned order dated 9.12.88 passed in Title Suit No. 42 of 1982 and the order dated 15.5.89 passed in Title Suit No. 6 of 1984 allowed the prayer for substitution. The defendant has impugned the said order dated 9.12.88 passed in Title Suit No. 42 of 1982 and other order dated 15.5.89 passed in Title Suit No. 6 of 1984 passed by the learned Munsiff in Civil Revision No. 3 of 1989 and Civil Revision No. 246 of 1989 respectively.