GULZARI LAL Vs. SMSARJU BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause 10. Letters Patent, against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 18 December 1947.

(2.) One Lala Chander Sen deposited a box containing jewellery in the Allahabad Bank Limited, Hathras Branch, in the joint names of himself and his wife, Mt. Sarju Bai. Sarju Bai filed a Suit (No. 54 of 1942) for a declaration that the ornaments belonged to her and were her stridhan property and that Chander Sen had no right or interest in them. Chander Sen contested the suit on the ground that a large part of the jewellery contained in the box belonged to his first wife and that there were some ornaments which belonged to him and the plaintiff's claim that all the ornaments belonged to her was false. The suit was, however, decreed by the lower Court and Chander Sen filed an appeal in this Court (First Appeal No. 217 of 1944). During the pendency of the appeal Chander Sen died on 15 May 1947. An application was thereupon filed by three persons, Gulzari Lal, Moti Lal and Om Prakash, who were related to Chander Sen as lather, brother and nephew respectively, that their names be brought on the record as "heirs and legal representatives" of Lala Chander Sen deceased. This application was filed under Order 82, Rule 3, Civil P.C., The application was opposed by Mt. Sarju Bai on the ground that she being the widow of Chander Sen she was his heir and in her lifetime his father, brother or nephew had no interest in the estate. This objection found favour with the learned single Judge who dismissed the application for substitution of names with the result that the appeal has abated. It is against this order that this Letters Patent appeal has been filed.

(3.) A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that the order under appeal is not appealable, but we see no force in the objection. Under Clause 10, Letters Patent, an appeal can foe filed against a judgment of a learned single Judge. The question for decision, therefore, is whether this is a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent. Learned Counsel for the respondents has cited before us in support of his objection a Division Bench ruling of this Court, Beni Madho Rao V/s. Shri Ram Chandraji Maharaj , where it was held that no appeal could be filed against an order by which it was decided as to which of the two sets of claimants were the legal representatives of the deceased. There can be no doubt that where a number of persons come forward to claim that they, as legal representatives of the deceased, have the right to continue an appeal as appellants or as respondents, any order of substitution made by the Court does not finally determine the rights of the various claimants inter se. All that the Court is interested in is to see that a person, who claims to have an interest in the property and prima facie appears to have such interest, is before the Court to re- present the estate. The other claimants, if they have any superior right to the estate, can always file a separate suit for the determination of their rights and the order passed for substitution of names has never been held to bar the decision of such a suit.