MOHAN LAL JHALANI Vs. RAJESH KUMAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 2.9.2008 passed in Title Suit No. 36 of 2005 by the learned Munsif 1st at Dhanbad, in which he has allowed the petition of the husband and daughter under Order XXII. Rule 3 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substituting their names in place of plaintiff No. 1, Smt. Somaraiya Devi. In substances, the brief facts of the case are that Smt. Somaraiya Devi and other seeking declaration of the title of the property. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Somaraiya Devi died, leaving behind her husband, married daughter and son. The son of plaintiff No. 1. Smt. Somaraiya Devi, was already on record as plaintiff No. 2. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 made an application as married daughter of plaintiff No. 1 and the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 (deceased) for their substitution in place of plaintiff No. 1.

(2.) DEFENDANT -petitioner objected the said application and took the plea that Smt. Somaraiya Devi (deceased) has specifically stated in her plaintiff that her husband Satya Narain Rai has not contributed any purchase money in purchase of the said property and, as such, she has claimed the said property as her stridhan. It was further objected that husband of Smt. Somaraiya Devi cannot inherit the land in dispute in view of the provisions contained under section 15 (2) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants, however, did not object for the substitution of the married daughter of the deceased.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order, this application is preferred in this Court. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued that the plaintiff No. 1 deceased, Smt. Somaraiya Devi, had purchased the property from Smt. Durga Devi, Man Singh, Parbati Devi and Ganga Devi, all heirs and legal representatives of late Banarshi Lal, about 7 kathas and 64 square-feet of holding Nos. 243, 244, 245 and 246 by registered sale deed No. 8724 dated 16.7.1988. "He further stated that the deceased Smt. Somaraiya Devi has categorically stated, as indicated in the judgment, that the husband of the respondent No. 3 did not contribute any money for the said purchase and, as such the husband cannot claim to be the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Somaraiya Devi in view of the provisions contained under section 15 (2) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act". Section 15 (2) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides as under :