AJAIB SINGH Vs. DALIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.12.1985 passed by the trial Court, permitting plaintiffs Dalip Kaur and Baljit Kaur to withdraw the suit with permission to bring a fresh one. The necessary facts giving rise to the filing of the revision petition may briefly by noticed in order to appreciate as to under what circumstances the suit was allowed to be withdrawn by the trial court.

(2.) Dalip Kaur, plaintiff is the widow of Bhajan Singh, whereas Baljit Kaur is the daughter of Bhajan Singh. Bhajan Singh had another brother named Ajaib Singh and both were sons of Sarwan Singh, Bhajan Singh predeceased his father Sarwan Singh leaving behind the plaintiffs as her heirs. The aforesaid Dalip Kaur and Baljit Kaur filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of the land measuring 35 Kanals 7 Marlas i.e. half share out of land measuring 70 Kanals 15 marlas by impleading the father of her husband i.e. Swaran Singh and the brother of the husband Ajaib Singh. The case of the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that by virtue of a family settlement, they were given the aforementioned land and, therefore, they be declared the owners of the same. During the pendency of the suit, Sarwan Singh died which led to the filing of an application for withdrawing the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were entitled to their share on the basis of inheritance as he left 18/19 acres of land. The trial Court allowed the application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure by virtue of the impugned order.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order. It has remained undisputed before me that Sarwan Singh has left 18/19 acres of land. In view thereof, it is to be decided by the trial Court in a validly constituted suit as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to their share in the land left by Sarwan Singh on the basis of inheritance, which is much bigger in area than the suit land which is only 5 acres. The question of inheritance would not naturally be gone into in the present suit. In view thereof, the order of the trial Court permitting withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh one has rightly been granted. There is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order.