SADHNA SINHA Vs. DIPESH SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.A. No. 7 of 2010

(2.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Smt. Sadhna Sinha, Anshuman Sinha and Anupam Sinha, who happens to be legal heirs and representatives of original applicant late Chandidas Sinha, against the order dated 21.10.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, F.T.C. -VI, Jamshedpur in connection with Title suit No. 3 of 2007. The facts in brief is that testator late Ratikanta Sinha created a Will dated 3.4.1992 in favour of his wife Abha Rani Sinha and four sons, namely, Chandidas Sinha, Suprakash Sinha, Sukumar Sinha and Ashish Kumar Sinha in respect of scheduled property mentioned at the foot of the application filed in the court below. Late Ratikanta Sinha died on 2.1.1997. Whereafter an application vide L.A. Case No. 116 of 2002 was filed in the Court of learned District Judge, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur by one of the legatees Chandidas Sinha. In the body of the application names of legal heirs of Ratikanta Sinha were disclosed including names of the legatees. During pendency of that application Deepesh Sinha, one of the son of late Ratikanta Sinha raised objection against grant of Letters of Administration in favour of applicant Chandidas Sinha, whereafter L.A. Case No. 116 of 2002 was converted into Title Suit No. 3 of 2007. Chandidas Sinha died on 25.4.2009, whereafter these appellants filed a petition to substitute them as plaintiffs, but the prayer was rejected vide impugned order dated 21.10.2009 and hence this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly refused to substitute the appellants in the suit. There are other legatees who can file separate petition for grant of Letters of Administration against the said Will created by late Ratikanta Sinha. Since late Chandidas Sinha had not acquired any right in the property, these appellants have no inheritable right and they are not entitled to be substituted, it is also pointed out that the judgment on which the appellants are relying upon is having distinguished fact which is not available in the present case. In that very case there was only one legatee and therefore, substitution petition was allowed.