(1.) THE defendant-petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court allowing the applicant Manjit Inder Kaur to be impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff-appellant to represent the estate of the deceased.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Nirankar Singh Dhillon died on 13.2.2003. Manjit Inder Kaur applicant filed application for impleading herself as the legal representative of the deceased alleging therein that she is the adopted daughter of the deceased by virtue of adoption deed dated 1.1.1957. She has also relied upon the order No. 653 dated 7.10.1958 wherein she is recorded as the adopted daughter of deceased Nirankar Singh Dhillon. She has also relied upon the affidavit suffered by the deceased on 26.7.1993 to the effect that the applicant is his daughter. Applicant has also relied upon the Identity Card of the deceased wherein the applicant is reflected as the adopted daughter. The first Appellate Court has found that although in the revenue record Manjit Inder Kaur is recorded as the daughter of Onkar Singh but that does not in any way deprive of claiming herself to be the daughter of Nirankar Singh Dhillon. It has been found that she has got the estate of Onkar Singh not by way of natural inheritance but on the basis of Will. Thus, the Court allowed Manjit Inder Kaur to represent the estate of deceased.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Order 22 Rule 5 reads as under :