JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. 1. Both the applications titled above are being decided by this order. Precisely, the dispute inter-se the parties is that there is a joint property known as "Prince of Wales", Regal Building and Annexe situated in Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. Plaintiffs and profortna defendant No. 9 claimed 51.04% share in the said property as co-owners and alleged that the defendants No. 1 to 3 have 26.04% share and defendants No. 5 to 8 have only 6.25% shares. 2. In short, the case of the plaintiffs, as averred in the plaint, is that the defendants aforesaid were having more share in their possession wherein they were running commercial activities whereas the plaintiffs were deprived of their shares, thus restricted their claim to three years and claimed an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the defendants as damages/mesne profit for use of excess share with interest. 3. A preliminary decree in the partition suit No. 64 of 1983 was passed on 22-11-1989 titled as Raman Khanna v. Vidya Khanna, and it is alleged in this suit, the defendants were delaying passing of the final decree on one pretext or other. 4. During the pendency of the present suit, Shri Sham Kishore Khanna (defendant No. 1), his wife Smt. Shivakhsi Khanna (defendant No. 4) died simultaneously and instantly along with their only male child Chaitanaya Khanna in a road accident on 14th May, 2008 near Sonipat in Haryana which fact has been admitted by the defendants in reply to the Application (OMP (M) No. 14 of 2008) moved by the plaintiffs and also in their own application No. OMP 333/2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in clear and unambiguous words. In the said application, the defendants also appended the copy of FIR and post-mortem reports to substantiate this fact. Thus, the parties are not at issue who died first or who died last. 5. The plaintiffs in their application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. (OMP (M) No. 14 of 2008) prayed to bring on record Smt. Yogesh Khanna wife of Shri Sadan Lal Khanna, the mother of defendant No. 4 as the "legal representative" being class II heir by virtue of the provisions of Sections 8, 15 and 21 read with First Schedule of the Act, as the deceased person did not leave behind any heir of Class-I. 6. Whereas the contention of the defendants is that although the aforesaid defendants along with their son died on the same date and time simultaneously leaving behind no heir of 1st class but vide para 4 of the application claimed three sisters, namely Smt. Asha Tandon, Mrs. Nirmala Mehrotra and Mrs. Saroj Puri daughters and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 sons of Shri Roop Kishore Khanna son of Shri Tek Chand Khanna cousin of deceased defendant No. 1 already on record as the legal heirs and necessary party to the suit. Further it is argued by Shri P.C. Sharma learned Counsel for the defendants that Smt. Yogesh Khanna wife of late Shri Sadan Lal Khanna had snapped and broken all the ties and legal relationship with defendants No. 1 and 4 along with their son by publically disowning them vide notice published in the Newspaper. Thus, she cannot inherit their property by succession and it was also contended that there was no certainty about the time of death as to who died first and who survived later. The presumption under Section 21 of the Act could only be pressed in to service, in the absence of such evidence and further argued that this issue is required to be determined by leading the evidence and he put his reliance on 2001 C L J 487, whereas Shri Ajay Sood Advocate for the plaintiff-applicants countered the above argument by submitting that the defendants have asserted and admitted that all the three persons have died simultaneously, thus they are not at issue on this point and the said judgment has no application to the facts in hand and notice or disclaimer etc. cannot thwart the statutory rule of succession under the Act. 7. The question here is to determine as to who is the 'legal-representative' of the deceased defendants to represent his/their estate for the purposes of the suit and whether the persons mentioned in para 4 of the application moved by the defendants are necessary parties to the suit. The decision on these applications is not going to decide the succession to the estate of the deceased. 8. It is pertinent to note that both the parties admitted that defendants No. 1 and 4 i.e. the husband and wife respectively had died simultaneously and instantly in the motor vehicular accident near Sonipat (Haryana) on 14th May, 2008 while on their way to Delhi. 8. It is pertinent to note that both the parties admitted that defendants No. 1 and 4 i.e. the husband and wife respectively had died simultaneously and instantly in the motor vehicular accident near Sonipat (Haryana) on 14th May, 2008 while on their way to Delhi. This fact also stands substantiated from the copies of FIR and post-mortem reports by the defendants. In a normal course, had defendant No. 1 pre-deceased his wife defendant No. 4 and her son Chatanya being class-I heir they would have succeeded to his estate as per Section 8 of the Act and in case of death of defendant No. 4 if Master Chaitanya survived, he becomes the legal heir by virtue of Section 15 of the Act but as already stated above all the three persons had perished simultaneously in the same accident. In such a situation, Section 21 of the Act raises a presumption in case of simultaneous deaths, it reads as under: 21. Presumption in case of simultaneous deaths.--Where two persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain whether either of them, and if so which, survived the other, then, for all purposes, affecting succession to property, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the younger survived the elder. 9. In other words where it is a case of commorientes i.e. to say of persons who perish at the same time in consequence of some calamity this Section raises a presumption until the contrary is proved the younger survives the elder. This is a reasonable presumption and it also applies to testamentary and intestate successions. 10. As already stated above Master Chaitanaya was youngest of all and died simultaneously with his parents, therefore, by virtue of Section 21 ibid, he survived his parents. He being the only legal heir of deceased defendants, after his death did not leave behind the class-I heir. Thus, Smt. Yogesh Khanna, his maternal grand-mother being a class II heir is clearly the 'legal-representative' of the deceased defendants, whereas Mrs. Asha Tandon, Mrs. Nirmala Malhotra, Mrs. Saroj Puri mentioned in para 4 of the application (OMP 333 of 2008) who claims themselves to be class-II heirs of defendant No. 1 but in the circumstances aforesaid, they are neither the legal heirs of deceased Chaitanaya nor the necessary parties to the suit. Asha Tandon, Mrs. Nirmala Malhotra, Mrs. Saroj Puri mentioned in para 4 of the application (OMP 333 of 2008) who claims themselves to be class-II heirs of defendant No. 1 but in the circumstances aforesaid, they are neither the legal heirs of deceased Chaitanaya nor the necessary parties to the suit. Whereas, Jugal Kishore Khanna and Manmohan Khanna, defendants No. 2 and 3 respectively are already on record, thus the estate of deceased is properly represented. 11. The contention raised by learned Counsel for the defendants that to determine the legal representative of the deceased requires the evidence to prove the rival contentions as to who died last, is worth rejecting because the parties are not at issue on this point as they have admitted that defendants No. 1 and 4 along with their child died simultaneously as already stated above. The next contention of Shri Sharma that Smt. Yogesh Khanna wife of late Sh. Sadan Lal Khanna had already snapped her ties with the defendants (1 and 4) by publishing a notice in the newspaper thus neither she could be the legal-heir nor the legal representative of the deceased defendants is also devoid of any merit because mere issuance of the notice or disclaimer as alleged cannot disinherit statutory heir as the Act aforesaid regulate the law of succession and inheritance. Such a notice or disclaimer has no legal value. 12. Thus for the foregoing reasons, the OMP (M) No. 14 of 2008 is allowed and Smt. Yogesh Khanna is ordered to be brought on record as the legal representative of deceased defendants No. 1 and 4 and their deceased male child Chaitanya Khanna with just exceptions, whereas OMP No. 333 of 2008 is dismissed. The Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the title of the suit. Smt. Yogesh Khanna be summoned on filing the process fee etc. by the plaintiff within two weeks. 13. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of.