LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE Vs. KAMLESH AJMERA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by Jugal Kishore Ladda and Smt. Santosh Devi respectively aggrieved against order dated 03.05.2014, whereby, the separate applications filed by them under Order XXII, Rule 3 CPC seeking impleadment as legal representatives of deceased Nand Lal have been accepted and both have been directed to be impleaded as legal representatives of deceased Nand Lal - plaintiff.

(2.) ONE Nand Lal Ladda filed a suit against defendant No. 1 - Kamlesh Ajmera for redemption of mortgage, possession and mesne profit; plaintiff - Nand Lal died during pendency of the suit on 14.02.2013; petitioner - Jugal Kishore Ladda in Civil Writ Petition No. 5558/2014 filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 3 CPC, inter alia, claiming that he alongwith Smt. Shakuntala, Ramesh Chandra Ladda, Suresh Chandra Ladda and Smt. Madhu Ajmera were legal representatives of deceased Nand Lal and only petitioner - Jugal Kishore was interested in being impleaded as legal representative of the plaintiff and, therefore, rest of the legal representatives be impleaded as formal parties; whereafter, another application was filed by Smt. Santosh Devi - petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 2506/2015 under Order XXII, Rule 3 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC (wrongly indicated as Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC), inter alia, claiming that the disputed property has been bequeathed by deceased Nand Lal - plaintiff in her favour by Will dated 10.02.2013 and, therefore, the petitioner is now the owner of the said property and entitled to be impleaded as party in place of the plaintiff.

(3.) JUGAL Kishore also filed reply to the application filed by Smt. Santosh Devi and contended that the application filed by him was correct; no Will was executed by Nand Lal in favour of Smt. Santosh Devi; the Will produced was forged; Smt. Santosh Devi was not in possession of the suit property as owner but only in her capacity as daughter -in -law of Nand Lal and, therefore, she cannot be impleaded as party. Suit for cancellation of Will was being filed and, as soon as the applicant became aware of the Will, he has disputed the same; Smt. Santosh Devi is not a necessary party and, therefore, the application filed by her deserves to be dismissed.