MAKHAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. MISHRILAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dtd. 3/12/2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Letter of Administration (LOA) Case No. 14 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court allowed the petition dtd. 3/7/2015 filed on behalf of Intervenors/opposite parties/respondents filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Ramrati Devi filed Title Suit No. 239 of 1989 before the learned Sub Judge, Vaishali for declaration of right and interest over the suit land and also for declaring certain deed of gift as illegal, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff. During pendency of the original suit, the plaintiff, Ramrati Devi, died and in her place, the name of present petitioner was substituted. The title suit was decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner by judgment dtd. 22/11/2013. During pendency of the title suit, the petitioner filed one LOA Case No. 14 of 2001 before the learned Additional District Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur. In LOA case, one Basudeo Singh, who is the son of Intervenor-Jamun Singh, filed a petition on 3/12/2003 for his impleadment as party in LOA Case No. 14 of 2001. However, the learned trial court rejected the petition vide order dtd. 8/10/2010, finding no merit in it. Against the said order, the intervenor-Basudeo Singh moved before this Court by filing CWJC No. 7321 of 2010, which was dismissed on 28/9/2011. Undeterred by the dismissal of the petition filed by his son, the original respondent no. 3, Jamun Singh filed another petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code on 27/3/2015, praying for his impleadment as an opposite party. The petitioner filed a rejoinder and after hearing the parties, the learned trial court vide order dtd. 3/12/2016 allowed the petition dtd. 23/7/2015, which is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court passed the order impugned without consideration of the objection made by the petitioner. Learned trial court did not consider that in earlier round of litigation, the son of the present intervenor was denied impleadment in the present case and it was upheld by this Court as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent no. 3 has died and has been substituted by his legal heirs/representatives as respondent nos. 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(iii). The basis of claim of original respondent no. 3 was the gift deed dtd. 23/1/1989 executed by one Firangi Bhagat. The original respondent no. 3 was convicted on 15/9/1997 for forging the signature of Firangi Bhagat on the deed of gift in a criminal case and earlier they were convicted for murder of Firangi Bhagat and taking into consideration this fact, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the petition filed by substituted respondent no. 3(i). Learned counsel further submitted that substituted respondent no. 3, Basudeo Singh and others illegally brought into existence the fraudulent deed of gift and thereafter in collusion with some other persons, they killed Firangi Bhagat and all these persons were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Moreover, the said deed of gift has been set aside in Title Suit No. 239 of 1989. So, there remains no basis for the respondents to get themselves impleaded in the LOA case filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that a petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code cannot be entertained in a proceeding for grant of probate or letter of administration. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no caveatable interest in the present case and hence, the learned trial court completely erred on the point when it ordered for impleadment of the respondents in the LOA case before it. Learned counsel further submitted that the intervenors/respondents have rather taken a plea that Ramrati Devi had got no right, title and interest over the property of Firangi Bhagat as her status was that of his concubine and not of wife. In fact, the intervenors challenged the title of the testator of the Will and their interests are adverserial to the testator. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. Brij Bhushan Singh and Ors., reported in 2023(3) PLJR, 233. For the aforesaid reasons, it has been submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same be set aside.