Judgment : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The minor plaintiffs Jeet Singh and Tek Chand initially sued through their mother/natural guardian Smt. Chanchlo @ Hukami wd/o late Shri Chand. Their suit was for a declaration that they have under the testamentary disposition of one Saran become owners of the suit land. The defendant-respondent No. 1, too claimed vestment of title in the suit property under a testamentary disposition executed in his favour by late Saran. The rival claims to the suit property as canvassed respectively on the strength of the respective testamentary dispositions of deceased testator Saran remain un-adjudicated. Initially, as stated above, the minors had instituted a suit against the defendants through their mother and natural guardian Chanchalo for a declaration of theirs having become owners of the suit property under the testamentary disposition executed qua it by their grand father Saran. The aforesaid Chanchalo withdrew the suit. However, the minor plaintiffs instituted an appeal through their maternal grand mother against the orders rendered by the learned trial Court dismissing their suit as withdrawn. The appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded to the learned trial Court for restarting the proceedings from the stage they stood terminated. During the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was instituted before it by the plaintiffs/applicants seeking impleadment of Chanchalo @ Hukami as a party in the array of defendants. It was claimed that she is a necessary party being a class 1 heir. Obviously, in the eventuality of both the testamentary dispositions propounded by the plaintiffs as well as defendant-respondent No. 1 coming to be set-aside then the rights in the suit land would devolve upon a class -1 heir in consonance with the Indian Succession Act. Naturally then the aforesaid Chanchalo @ Hukami claimed by the plaintiffs to be class-1 heir would succeed to the estate of late Saran. In aftermath for facilitating hers to protect her interest in the suit property her impleadment was just and essential. The said fact is contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. He also contests that the application necessitated dismissal as it is a clever contrivance on the part of the respondents to delay the proceedings. 2. In aftermath for facilitating hers to protect her interest in the suit property her impleadment was just and essential. The said fact is contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. He also contests that the application necessitated dismissal as it is a clever contrivance on the part of the respondents to delay the proceedings. 2. Belated institution of the application on the part of the plaintiffs-respondents for the impleadment of Chanchalo in the array of defendants does not constitute a good and potent ground for the non impleadment of Chanchalo in the array of defendants, especially when it was claimed by the plaintiff-respondents that she is a class 1 heir to whom the suit property would devolve in the eventuality of both the testamentary dispositions propounded by each of the parties at contest, falling apart. Consequently, leaving aside the fact that she at this stage ought not to be concluded to be having any invincible right as a class 1 heir to the suit property, which conclusion is to be formed and drawn on the basis of evidence on the apposite issue as is or may be struck by the learned trial Court on the pleadings, as exist before it, the necessary facet at this stage, is that when it is claimed by the plaintiffs-respondents that she is class 1 heir, she obviously has a tenable and sound right to prove the said fact. Besides, she has a right to also contest the respective testamentary dispositions. More so, when proof thereof would empower her to hence succeed to the estate of the deceased Saran in the event of both his testamentary dispositions coming to face discountenance by the learned trial Court. Obviously, then the mere contest on the part of the petitioner herein even in the absence of evidence to oust her claim ought not to constitute a good ground at this stage for this Court to construe her to be neither a proper party nor a necessary party. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein has contended that since the earlier suit was instituted by the plaintiffs through their mother and natural guardian hence the respondents herein are estopped to claim when it is also averred in the relevant paragraphs that she has no interest adverse to the minors that she is a necessary and proper party. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein has contended that since the earlier suit was instituted by the plaintiffs through their mother and natural guardian hence the respondents herein are estopped to claim when it is also averred in the relevant paragraphs that she has no interest adverse to the minors that she is a necessary and proper party. However, the said argument stand negatived in the face of the fact that now the suit which has recommenced before the learned trial Court after its remand to it by the first appellate Court depicts the factum of the minor plaintiffs now suing through their grand mother and natural guardian. 4. In sequel, the reasons as formed by the learned trial Court are anvilled upon a proper appreciation of the material on record, obviously then the findings do not necessitate interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed.