MEHAN SINGH Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MEHMA Singh, Krishna and Surmukh Singh were the sons of Tarlok Singh. Krishna had a son named Pritasn Singh, who died in the year 1981 The dispute relates to his property. Surmukh Singh, his uncle, as well as Mihan Singh son of Mehma Singh, jointly filed a suit for declaration as well as for possession against one Amarjit Kaur and Maya Devi on the basis of inheritance. The suit was decreed only in favour of Surmukh Singh. The trial Court found that Surmukh S ngh would succeed to the property in preference to Pritam Singh and Mihan Singh. This decree was challenged by Amarjit Kaur before the District Judge, Ambala. The appeal is stated to be pending During the pendency of the appeal, Surmukh Singh died His son, Surjit, made an application for being brought on record on the basis of a registered Will executed by Surmukh Singh in his favour. Pritam Sinsh and Mihan Singh also set up another Will. The trial Court without going into the question as to who would succeed on the basis of which Will, ordered Surjit Singh to be impleaded as legal representative in place of Surmukh Singh being his son. This order is being impugned in the present revision petition.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the present revision petition deserves to succeed. Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins upon the trial Court, the duty to determine as to who is to be brought on record as legal representative of the deceased. The trial Court without going into the question of validity or genuineness of the Will set up by two sets of parties, allowed the one to be brought on record as legal representative This approach of the trial Court cannot be sustained in view of provision of Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court either should have allowed both Mihan Singh, Pritam Singh and Surjit Singh to be brought on record as legal representatives subject to their inter se dispute to be independently tried and decided in a separate proceedings, or should have determined the question of validity of genuineness of the Will for the purpose of re presenting the estate of the deceased. Neither of these modes were adopted, Considering that Mihan Singh and Pritam Singh are parties to the appeal, the first Appellate Court shall bring on record Mihan Singh. Pritam Singh also and Surjit Singh as legal representatives for the purpose of representing the estate of the deceased. So far as genuineness and validity of the Wills is concerned, the same can be decided between the legal representatives whenever any suit/proceedings for succession to the property of Surmukh Singh are filed either on the basis of natural succession or on the basis of the Wills set up by them.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision petition is allowed, but with no order as to costs.