Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 56 (HP)

MAHANT MADHO RAM v. GIRI RAM

2000-03-28

M.R.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by applicant with the prayer to bring him on record as the legal representative of deceased Mahant Madho Ram, appellant /plaintiff in RSA No. 14 of 1995. It is averred that during the pendency of the said appeal, the sole appellant/plaintiff Mahant Madho Ram died on September 17,1998 leaving behind the applicant as his sole legal representative vide Will dated January 19, 1993. 2. The respondents/defendants have contested the application on the grounds that the applicant is not the legal representative of the deceased appellant/plaintiff, that the Will aforesaid stands cancelled and revoked in view of the subsequent Will dated July 29, 1998 and that the affairs of the temple are being managed «by a Managing Committee. It is also averred that apart from the applicant, the deceased had left behind his widow Biaso, daughters Sarla Devi, Urmila Devi, Nirmala Devi and Rita Devi, therefore, all the heirs of the deceased have to be brought on record. 3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record. 4. The dispute between the parties relates to the management of Shiv Mandir in village Kathgarh. As per the plaintiff/appellant, the Manager and Mohatmim of the said temple has right to designate his Chela who, on the death of the Mahant succeeds as such to the office of Mohatmim and Manager of the said temple. This position, however, is disputed for the respondents/defendants. Thus, the controversy in the appeal necessarily involves the vital questions whether the office of Manager/Mohatmim of the temple exists and whether a person nominated as Chela and successor by such Manager/Mohatmim only succeeds to the office on the death of the Manager/Mohatmim. While considering the claimed status of the applicant as legal representative of the deceased, the said questions arise in this application also for determination. Any final expression of opinion on those questions in this application, in all probability, will effect the controversy between the parties on merits of the appeal. While considering the claimed status of the applicant as legal representative of the deceased, the said questions arise in this application also for determination. Any final expression of opinion on those questions in this application, in all probability, will effect the controversy between the parties on merits of the appeal. Therefore to avoid prejudice to the parties, on merits of the appeal, the applicant if found entitled to be impleaded as legal representative, has to be so brought on record only for the purpose of further prosecution of the appeal and such an order must be only collateral to the decision of the appeal, keeping the said questions open for decision in the appeal. 5. As per the Will dated January 19,1993, the deceased had bequeathed his right, title and interest in favour of the applicant. However, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants is that this Will stands cancelled and revoked vide subsequent Will dated July 29, 1998 and that the applicant is not the sole legal representative of the deceased. Primarily, these two Wills are distinct in nature inasmuch as the Will dated January 19, 1993 relates to the office of Manager Mohatmim of the temple allegedly held by the deceased, and the Will dated July 29, 1998 relates to his personal/individual property. Secondly, even by the subsequent Will the earlier Will has not been expressly or impliedly cancelled and revoked. Lastly, even by this Will the deceased had bequeathed his personal estate to the applicant alone and not to other heirs. Therefore, on the strength of the cumulative effect of these two Wills the applicant is best entitled to be impleaded as legal representative of the deceased appellant/ applicant. 6. In view of the above, this application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be brought on record as appellant/plaintiff in place of the deceased subject to the condition that the order is only collateral to the decision of the appeal and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion about the existence of and manner of succession to the office of Manager/Mohatmirn of the temple. Application allowed.