YOGINDER SINGH Vs. NEELAM KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted a suit, wherein, he sought rendition of a declaratory decree, for setting aside the testamentary disposition executed by one Prithi Singh vis-avis one Dev Kanya, also, sought a declaratory decree, of, sale deed executed, on 8.10.2009, by defendant No.2 vis-a-vis defendant No.1 also being set aside. However, during the pendency of the suit, an application cast, under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, was preferred before the learned trial Court, by the plaintiff, wherein, he sought leave of the court, to incorporate in the plaint, the hereinafter reproduced paragraph</i> No.7-A:-

(2.) The learned trial Court, declined the apposite leave to the plaintiff, on the trite ground, (a) of, given the occurrence of demise of co-defendant No.2, one Dev Kanya, during the pendency of the apposite lis, and, her estate thereat, opening to succession, (b) thereupon, causes of action being both segregable, and, independent vis-a-vis all cause(s) of action, embodied, in the extant suit, and, (c) also assigned the further reason of the aforesaid causes of action rather being espousable, through, a separate suit. The aforesaid reasons assigned by the learned trial Court, for declining the apposite leave, upon, the apt application, are, flimsy, and, devoid of any legal strength, for the reasons (a) with the plaintiff, casting, a piercing challenge, to the succession, by co-defendant Dev Kanya, to the estate of one Prithi Singh, under, a purported testamentary disposition made in her favour; (b) with Dev Kanya, expiring , during the pendency of the suit, whereafter, defendant No.1 vis-a-vis whom, she executed a testamentary disposition, hence, proceeding to produce it, before, the revenue officer concerned, for ensuring an apposite order, of attestation of mutation vis-a-vis her estate hence being recorded qua him, (c) thereupon, with the apposite investing, of, title vis-a-vis the suit land, upon, Dev Kanya, rather occurring under a will purportedly executed vis-a-vis her, by one Prithi Singh, and, with the aforesaid Will, being, cast a challenge through an apposite averment borne in the plaint, (d) hence, with the aforesaid challenge being made, during, the life time of Dev Kanya, and, after her demise, defendant No.1, producing, the latter's Will, for ensuring attestation of mutation vis-a-vis her estate hence being recorded in his favour, (e) hence, beget a sequel of their being no indiligence, on the part of the plaintiff, to initially, in the plaint, embodying, the aforesaid factum, conspicuously when Dev Kanya was alive thereat, and, was impleaded as co-defendant No.2 in the suit.

(3.) The aforesaid discussion, unfolds, the trite factum of there, being the closest entwinement(s) inter se the relief canvassed initially in the plaint, pointedly, vis-a-vis the valid and due execution, of a testamentary disposition vis-a-vis Dev Kanya, by one Prithi Singh, and, also vis-a-vis the further concomitant purported disability, of Dev Kanya, to further execute a Will, vis-a-vis the estate acquired by her, from, one Priti Singh, upon co-defendant No.1. The close entwinement(s) , inter se the aforesaid trite factum(s) , was, hence insegregable, and, thereupon, all were concomitantly espousable, through, the plaintiff concerting to seek leave of the Court, to beget averments, in consonance therewith, in the extant suit, rather than the learned trial Court, proceeding to assign untenable and specious reasons, for theirs being segregable, from, the initially cast averments, and, reliefs in the plaint, and, hence, theirs constituting causes of action, independent, from, the ones, initially canvassed in the plaint. More so, when the aforesaid reasons, would beget the ill sequel, of promoting multiplicity(ies) of litigation, whereas, it being an underlined trite principle of law, that causes of action holding interconnectivity rather being enjoined to be joined in the same suit, rather, than the litigants concerned being driven to file separate suits, on purported untenably segregable cause(s) of action.