VIDYA DEVI Vs. SHRUTI CHOUDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the order dated 2.5.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for impleading Smt. Kiran Chaudhary widow of late Ch. Surender Singh as one of the defendants in the suit/counter claim, was dismissed.

(2.) IT is the estate of late Ch. Bansi Lal and late Ch. Surender Singh, which is in question in the lis pending before the court below, out of which the present revision has arisen. Ch. Surender Singh expired on 31.3.2005, whereas Ch. Bansi Lal expired on 28.3.2006. Immediately after the death of Ch. Bansi Lal, on 25.8.2006, a suit for declaration was filed that respondent No. 1- plaintiff was owner in possession of the immoveable property of Ch. Bansi Lal on the basis of joint will dated 6.6.2004 executed by late Ch. Bansi Lal and his son late Ch. Surender Singh- father of respondent No. 1-plaintiff. Another registered will dated 19.7.2005 executed by late Ch. Bansi Lal was under challenge. The widow, one surviving son and four daughters of Ch. Bansi Lal were impleaded as defendants in the suit. While filing the written statement, the petitioner-defendant No. 6 also filed a counter claim claiming ownership of the property on the basis of registered will dated 19.7.2005, which was challenged by respondent No. 1-plaintiff in the suit filed by her. After filing the written statement, an application was filed for seeking impleadment of Smt. Kiran Chaudhary widow of late Ch. Surender Singh as one of the defendants in the suit, being necessary party. It is the order passed by the learned court below on this application, which is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that Smt. Kiran Chaudhary is neither necessary nor proper party in the suit. In fact, she is sought to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit to tarnish her image, she being a public figure has political image in the State. The claim in the suit is only on the basis of a joint will executed by late Ch. Bansi Lal and late Ch. Surender Singh. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff is only seeking declaration based thereon, while challenging a subsequent will which came to her notice after the death of Ch. Bansi Lal as without challenging the same, she could not have got effective relief. If the suit of respondent No. 1-plaintiff is ultimately to fail on account of the fact that proper and necessary parties were not impleaded, it is she who is going to suffer. For that reason, any body against whom respondent No. 1-plaintiff is not willing to contest her claim, should not be thrown on her, the plaintiff being dominus lius. Reliance was placed upon Kanakarathanammal v. V. S. Loganatha Mudaliar and another, AIR 1965 SC 271; Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad v. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal and others, AIR 1969 P&H 57; Lakshmi Narain v. The District Judge and others, 1992 Civil Court Cases 378 (Allahabad) and Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike and others, 2006(4) RCR(Civil) 468 : (2006)8 SCC 75.