MAHENDER KUMAR Vs. VIKESH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff(s) instituted a suit, for, rendition, of, a decree qua specific performance of agreement to sell executed, on 14.01.2007, inter se the plaintiffs, and, the defendant. During the pendency of the suit co-plaintiff No.1 Gulab Singh died, and, upon his demise, an application was instituted, by one Kamla Devi, widow of deceased Gulab Singh, for hers, being susbstituted in his place, as, a co-plaintiff in the array, of, plaintiffs. An averment is also borne therein that apart, from, the aforesaid Kamla Devi, another legal heir, of, the deceased, one Vikesh Thakur already standing arrayed, as, coplaintiff No.2. it is also averred therein qua one Ritesh Thakur, another son of the deceased being also the legal heir, of, deceased co-plaintiff Gulab Singh, yet, the aforesaid Kamla Devi, avers, therein qua her and the already arrayed co-plaintiff Vikesh Thakur, are, rather sufficiently representing the estate, of, the deceased, hence, the impleadment of another son of the deceased, namely, Ritesh Kumar, in, the array of co-plaintiff being not necessary. No reply to the aforesaid application was filed, and, rather on 4.11.2014, the learned trial Court recorded, an affirmative pronouncement thereon.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing, for the respondent has contended with much vigour, before this Court, that, the apt parlance borne by, the, statutory coinage, "legal representative", embodied in Sec. 2(11) of the CPC, the relevant provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

(3.) However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, (a) given the character, and, nature of the suit. Visibly the suit, is, instituted for rendition of a decree, of specific performance, of, agreement to sell, executed inter se the co-plaintiffs and the defendant, hence, for ensuring accruals or bestowals, of, all benefits, of, an apt decree, if any, pronounced, for, specific performance, of, contract, vis-a-vis, all the legal heirs of deceased co-plaintiff No.1, (b) thereupon, obviously, hence, the mere impeladment, of, Kamla Devi, the widow of deceased co-plaintiff, and, of already arrayed co-plaintiff Vikesh Thakur, rather disempowering all, of, them, to, on demise of co-plaintiff No.1 Gulab Singh, hence acquire the benefits of a decree, if any, rendered qua the apt agreement, executed inter se the co-plaintiffs, and, the defendants, (c) nor hence the aforesaid Kamla Devi, and, Vikash Thakur, can be concluded, of, theirs rather sufficiently representing the estate of deceased co-plaintiff, Gulab Singh, nor hence, also imperatively on their behalf. Reiteratedly, they rather are precluded, upon, on occurrence of demise of the aforesaid, and, in absence of their impleadment in the array of the co plaintiffs , to, hence derive, benefits, if, any, qua rendition of a decree of specific performance, as may be recorded, vis-a-vis, the apt agreement, unless, of course, they are directed to be joined as co-plaintiffs, after, the demise of co-plaintiff No.1 Gulab Singh.