Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 187 (PNJ)

Joginder Singh v. Phool Chand

2010-01-11

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2010
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. As per averments made in this petition, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of 1/2 share of total land measuring 74 kanals 4 marlas and judgment and decree dated 26.7.1993 passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Jagadhri in titled as "Joginder Singh etc. v. Nanak" Civil Suit No. 516 of 1993 in respect of 1/2 share standing in the name of (defendant No. l)Nanak since deceased out of the total land measuring 49 kanals in favour of the appellants, was illegal and not binding upon their rights. 2. During the pendency of the case, defendant No. 1, namely, Nanak died and the petitioners, who were already on record as defendants No. 3 to 7, moved an application before the trial Court for being impleaded as LRs of deceased Nanak on the basis of a registered Will in their favour. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order 21.5.2009. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the aforesaid order submitting that the application filed by them could not be dismissed on technical grounds and for proper adjudication of the present dispute between the parties, it was necessary to bring on record the petitioners as legal representatives of deceased- Nanak and no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents if the application filed by the petitioners is accepted and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and they are entitled to be brought on record as LRs of deceased- Nanak. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners are already on record of the case. It is well settled that an enquiry for determination for bringing on record the legal representatives of a deceased is summary in nature and is for a limited purpose to carry on the proceedings on behalf of the deceased. However, in the present case, the petitioners are setting up their claim to the share of the deceased-Nanak on the basis of a registered Will dated 29.8.1997. Since they are already on record of the case, they are free to take up any defence for proving their rights qua the property in dispute. However, in the present case, the petitioners are setting up their claim to the share of the deceased-Nanak on the basis of a registered Will dated 29.8.1997. Since they are already on record of the case, they are free to take up any defence for proving their rights qua the property in dispute. It will not cause prejudice to them if they are not described as LRs of Nanak in the present case as they can always set up their rights to the property/share of the Nanak deceased on the basis of the Will dated 29.8.1997. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Dismissed.