JOGINDER KAUR Vs. NARINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 19.5.2004, whereby the amendment sought in the written statement was declined.

(2.) The estate of one Parkash Kaur is in dispute. She died on 16.12.1980 leaving behind her husband Balwant Singh, son Baljit Singh and daughters Narinder Kaur and Salwinder Kaur. Mutation of estate of Parkash Kaur was sanctioned in favour of her husband Balwant Singh allegedly on the basis of Will dated 21.11.1980. Though the said order of sanction of the mutation was set aside in appeal but Balwant Singh has suffered a consent decree in favour of his son Baljit Singh and one of the daughters i.e. Narinder Kaur. They have filed the present suit for joint possession claiming 1/4th share of the suit property. In the said suit Balwant Singh and Baljit Singh were impleaded as defendants. Even before filing of the written statement, Balwant Singh died. In the written statement, filed by Baljit Singh, no reference was made to the Will dated 21.11.1980, though reliance was placed on a decree suffered by Balwant Singh in favour of Baljit Singh. By virtue of the amendment, the defendants want to plead that the order, whereby the mutation sanctioned in favour of Balwant Singh was set aside, is illegal. The said amendment has been declined on the ground that the legal heirs of Baljit Singh cannot be permitted to challenge the stand taken by Baljit Singh.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court declining the amendment is not sustainable in law. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court that the defendants cannot be permitted to challenge the stand taken by their predecessor Baljit Singh, is not sustainable as the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant have same right as were possessed by the deceased-defendant. Had the defendant been alive, he would have the same right to seek the amendment in the written statement. Therefore, the said right cannot be declined to the legal representatives.