Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 841 (HP)

Ganga Devi v. Krishan

2012-11-16

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2012
Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. The plaintiff has instituted the present petition against the order of the learned trial Court rejecting his application for amendment of the plaint. 2. The plaintiff had instituted a suit in which amendment was prayed for on the pleadings that she is the daughter of Smt.Vidya Devi and defendant No.2 Man Singh is her brother. The deceased Vidya Devi was having agricultural land in which, according to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 Krishan Lal had no right, title and interest. Only she alongwith the second defendant being natural heirs has succeeded to the land/estate of Smt. Vidya Devi. The pleading then proceeds that Vidya Devi was an old lady. She was old, weak, rustic, innocent, illiterate and simpleton lady, who did not possess enough mental faculty to distinguish between what was right or wrong and remained confined to bed for the last more than 20 years before her death. She was totally depended upon other persons. It was only the plaintiff who looked after in these circumstances. She had suffered a paralytic attack because of the death of her young son and was not able to distinguish between right and wrong and remained in constant mental depression as a result of which her mental faculties deteriorated. She did not execute any will/document in favour of any person during her life time. The plaintiff was surprised to learn that the defendants in collusion with the revenue Authorities had manipulated the entries in the revenue record based on some purported will executed by Smt. Vidya Devi on 18.8.1996 on the basis of which the ownership, title etc. were changed the records. This mutation proceeding was also contrary to the law and were carried out in a surreptitious manner. Subsequent pleading is that the sale deed executed is also null and void for the reasons pleaded and that it is for this reason that it does not bind her interest. 3. The defendants have filed their written statements, while defendant No.1 had even instituted a counter claim. 4. The application filed pleads that Man Singh, defendant No.2, had died intestate. The plaintiff being his real sister is her sole heir who would succeed to his estate, Smt. Sunita and Sanjay Kumar, who were impleaded as legal representatives of Man Singh, claiming to be his wife and son, was illegal. Consequent mutations sanctioned are also not binding on her estate. The plaintiff being his real sister is her sole heir who would succeed to his estate, Smt. Sunita and Sanjay Kumar, who were impleaded as legal representatives of Man Singh, claiming to be his wife and son, was illegal. Consequent mutations sanctioned are also not binding on her estate. It also pleads that the mutation sanctioned in favour of Prem Lal is on the basis of fabricated documents. The mutation sanctioned of the estate does not bind the interest of the plaintiff. 5. I find from the order passed by learned trial Court on 4.11.2011 that applications under Order 22 Rule 3 and under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Man Singh were filed. In fact three applications were filed, one by the plaintiff, second by defendant No.1, who had also instituted a counter claim and third by the proposed purported legal heirs of defendant No.2. The learned trial Court holds that there is nothing on the record to prove that deceased Man Singh executed a will in favour of his minor son Sanjay. There was no evidence to this effect. From the facts, on the submissions made, the application was allowed and Sunita and Sanjay were ordered to be brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased Man Singh. The learned trial Court holds that the amendment is not necessary for adjudication of the parties as the real dispute between them is the will executed by the deceased Smt.Vidya Devi in favour of first and second defendants. These have been challenged by the plaintiff and in these circumstances, there was no necessity of impleading these parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. It is well settled law that all amendments which are necessary for adjudication of the real controversy of the parties are required to be granted and that the subsequent events are also be allowed to be brought on the record, which has material bearing of the controversy between the parties. In the present case what I find from the pleadings as also from the order of the learned trial Court is that the will executed by Smt.Vidya Devi has already been challenged. It is her estate and it is devolution which is an issue in the suit. 8. In the present case what I find from the pleadings as also from the order of the learned trial Court is that the will executed by Smt.Vidya Devi has already been challenged. It is her estate and it is devolution which is an issue in the suit. 8. In these circumstances, the rejection of the application is perfectly in order as the real controversy between the parties is with respect to the estate of deceased Smt. Vidya Devi. Needless to add that this estate will be bound by the principle of lis pendense as held in Smt. Kasturi Devi and another vs. Harbant Singh and others, AIR 2000 Punjab and Haryana 271 and Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu vs. Pravat Chandra Chatterjee and others, AIR 1992 Orissa 47. 9. The succession of the estate of Man Singh will be determined separately in proceedings which may be instituted by either party. This petition is accordingly rejected. 10. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.