BINDRU Vs. SADA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of an application under O. 1 R. 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was for partition and separate possession of certain land and for ancillary reliefs. The plaintiff based his claim as a collateral of deceased Hatu to whom the land originally belonged. The defendants in the suit are the other collaterals of deceased Hatu. The plaintiff as well as the defendants proceeded on the common basis that Hatu died without leaving behind him a widow or lineal descendants. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that he was one of the reversioners entitled to claim a share in the property of deceased Hatu. Alternatively, they pleaded that even if the plaintiff is a reversioner, his right became extinguished on account of ouster and adverse possession by them.

(2.) AFTER the trial of the suit had progressed to its final stage, the petitioner, Mst. Bindro. came forward with an application under O. 1. R. 10(2) asking to be impleaded as a party defendant to the suit on the ground that she is the widow of deceased Hatu. If she is the widow of deceased Hatu as alleged by her, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants in the suit would have any right whatever to the property of deceased Hatu, as his reversioners. In view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act Mst. Bindro may be able to claim that she has become the absolute owner of the entire property left by Hatu.

(3.) THE application of Mst. Bindro was resisted by the plaintiff. The trial court upheld the objection of the plaintiff and rejected the application. Mst. Bindro has come up in revision to this court against the order of the trial court.