SHYAM MANOHAR GUPTA Vs. MITHILESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a very peculiar case in which Shyam Manohar Gupta, petitioner has challenged the order of the Addl. District Judge, No. 2 Jaipur City dt. 5-2-86 by which, the,order of the learned Munsif was affirmed and the rent was determined to be deposited in the Court.

(2.) TWO suits are pending with regard to one premises D-147/a situated in Bani Park, Jaipur. This property belongs to Har Sharan Lal Saxena who has now expired. Har sharan Lal filed a suit against the petitioner on the ground of default for rent and ejectment on 6-9-80. In that suit the Court determined the rent on 30-1-81. Thereafter, Harsharan Lal expired on 22-11-81 and Vasudeo Charan was brought on record as legal representative on 4-10-82, Mr. P. R. Sharma stated that Vasudeo was brought on record after making as L. R. of Harsharan Lal but without any notice to Smt. Mithilesh Kumari widow of Harsharan Lal and Rajesh Sharan who is in possession of a will executed in his favour by Harsharan Lal. So Vasudeo was brought on record simply on the application of Vasudeo. . Mr. Goyal stated that Vasudeo has also a will in his favour executed by Harsharan Lal and on the basis of that will he became the L. R. Whatever may be the position about the will it will be decided when the suit will be disposed of. But, at present the position that Vasudeo on the basis of the will became the L. R. of Harsharan Lal, which is challenged by Mithilesh Kumari and Rajesh Sharan.