Smt. Kheti & Ors v. Arjun

IN T

¶1RSA-137 Kheti and Other

Arjan (now dece

¶2CR-2349 Arjan (now dece

Keshla (Decease

CORAM : HO

Present: In

Mr

Ms

Mr

Mr

In

Mr

Mr

Mr

Ms THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

Re

Pro 71-1991 rs

VERSUS

eased) through LRs

-1991 eased) through LRs

VERSUS

ed) S/o Sh. Sehoji through LRs. ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND RSA r. M.L.Sarin, Sr. Advocate with s. Hemani Sarin, Advocate for th r. A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate and r. Ashish Kaushik, Advocate for CR r. A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate and r. Ashish Kaushik, Advocate, for r. M.L.Sarin, Sr. Advocate with s. Hemani Sarin, Advocate for th

JAB AND HARYANA ARH served on :- 17.09.2025 onounced on : 22.09.2025

....Appellants

….Respondent

....Petitioner

….Respondent DEEP PANNU he appellants. the respondent. r the petitioner. he respondents.

-

MANDEEP PA

1.

Thi plaintiffs agains Sub Judge, Nar

05.03.1991 pass the appeal.

2.

Alo titled as "Arjan through LRs." f representatives, Court refusing Gugan, has also controversy. Brief Facts

3.

In t seeking declara absentee Sedhu, 60 years. It wa illegal. Keshla a

4.

son of Smt. Su property as siste sanctioned in hi

ANNU,J. is Regular Second Appeal has st the judgment and decree dated rnaul dismissing their suit, an sed by the learned Additional D ong with this appeal, Civil Re n (now deceased) through LRs filed by Arjun, since deceased challenging the order dated 0 g to implead him as legal rep o been taken up together, both the year 1980, plaintiff-Keshla f ation that he alone was entitle , resident of Kotwal Kalan, who as pleaded that the mutation sa asserted that he, being collateral o e defendant contested the suit o ukhma, real sister of Sedhu, an er's son. He further contended s favour.

been preferred by the appellan d 25.02.1985 passed by the learn d the judgment and decree da District Judge, Narnaul, dismiss vision Petition No. 2349 of 19 Keshla (Deceased) S/o Sh. Seh and now represented by his le

05.03.1991 of the lower Appell resentative of deceased defend h matters arising out of the sa filed a suit against defendant Gu ed to succeed to the property o had not been heard of for the anctioned in favour of Gugan w of Sedhu, was the rightful heir. on the ground that he was the r nd thus entitled to inherit Sedh that the mutation had been righ

- nts– ned ated sing hoji egal late dant ame gan y of last was real hu's

5.

Rep

6.

On

¶1as w

¶2def

3.

4. OP

5.

6.

7.

including the pe

8.

produced docum Findings of the

9.

holding that he h sister of Sedhu. entitled to succ decided against and decree dated

10.

Du his wife and his plication was filed by the plainti n the basis of pleadings, the follow Whether the plaintiff is the o well as in possession of the suit p Whether Smt. Sukhma wa fendant is her son? If so, its effec Whether the suit is barred by Whether the plaintiff has no PD Whether the suit is not maint Relief. e plaintiff examined six witne edigree table, mutation orders, an e defendant examined six w mentary evidence such as revenu e Trial Court e trial Court decided Issue N had proved himself to be the son On Issue No. 1, the plaintiff was ceed in preference to the defen the plaintiff. Consequently, the d 25.02.1985. uring the pendency of the suit, pl children went in appeal before t

ff reiterating his stand. wing issues were framed: only legal heir of Sedhu and ow property? OPP as the real sister of Sedhu ct? OPD y limitation? OPD locus standi to file the present su tainable in the present form? OP esses and relied upon docume nd Jamabandi extracts. witnesses including himself a e records and mutation entries. No. 2 in favour of the defenda n of Smt. Sukhma, who was the r s held to be only a collateral but ndant. The other issues were a e suit was dismissed vide judgm laintiff-Keshla had died. Thereaf the Lower Appellate Court.

- wner and uit? D ents and ant, real not also ment fter,

Findings of the

11.

In a findings of the t on 01.02.1990. representative o

12.

impugned vide suspicious circu without substitu Court dismissed

13.

Ag by the plaintiff

05.03.1991 refu also died and is Submissions of

14.

Lea defendant Guga absence. A decr since Arjun was appellate Court

15.

On submitted that genuineness of t stage, the only e First Appellate Court appeal, the learned Additional D trial Court . During pendency of . Arjun moved an application f Gugan on the basis of a Will d e lower appellate Court de order dated 05.03.1991, holding umstances, rejecting Arjun's pr uting any other legal representa d the appeal on merits on 05.03.1 grieved thereby, the present Reg fs. Arjun also filed a Civil Rev using to implead him. During pe now represented by his legal rep f learned counsel for the partie arned counsel for the appellants– an had died, the appeal could n ree against a dead person is a nu s not impleaded, the estate rema erred gravely in proceeding wit n the other hand, learned coun the appellate Court acted illeg the Will at the stage of substituti requirement is to bring some

District Judge, Narnaul affirmed f the appeal, defendant Gugan d n seeking impleadment as le ated 31.12.1985. ecided this application separat g that the Will was surrounded rayer for impleadment. Thereaf tive of Gugan, the lower appel 1991. gular Second Appeal has been fi vision challenging the order da endency of the revision, Arjun presentatives. s –plaintiffs argued that once the s not be dismissed on merits in ullity. It was further contended t ained unrepresented, and the low th the appeal. nsel for Arjun (through his L ally in going into the question ion under Order XXII CPC. At t person on record to represent

- died egal tely d by fter, late filed ated has sole his that wer Rs) n of

estate, leaving th proceedings. It w any defendant b Questions for C

16.

¶1Gu adj

¶2on

17.

Aft and suspective s considered opin law while deali legal representa the stage of sub indeed should n document on th proceedings are the estate of the abate or remain take place in a p ground of suspi far beyond its ju he question of validity of the Wi was further submitted that the ap being represented. Consideration e controversy is confined to: Whether Arjun, who claime ugan on the basis of a Will, oug udicating the genuineness of the If not impleaded, whether th merits in absence of any defenda ter going through the findings o submissions of learned counsel nion that the lower appellate Co ing with the application filed by ative of deceased defendant Gug bstitution under Order XXII CPC not go into the genuineness o he basis of which the applican e summary in nature, and the Co e deceased party is adequately r undefended. Any adjudication o properly instituted civil suit. By r cious circumstances in the Will, urisdiction.

ill to be decided in appropriate c ppeal was wrongly decided with ed to be LR of deceased defend ht to have been impleaded with e Will? he appeal could have been deci ant? f the learned lower appellate Co for the parties, this Court is of ourt committed a manifest error y Arjun for impleading himself gan. The settled principle is tha C, the Court is not required to or validity of a Will or any ot nt seeks impleadment. Substitut ourt's sole concern is to ensure t represented so that the lis does on genuineness of the Will can o rejecting Arjun's application on , the lower appellate court travel

- civil hout dant hout ded ourt r in f as at at and ther tion that not only

18.

On consequence wa appellate court. against a dead p against a deceas not have procee

19.

Arj Gugan for the li the pendency o represented by h ordered to be su litigation.

20.

It representatives) this litigation. T Will dated 31.1 be gone into in s

21.

absence of any L them is without property is still Court, in the pr finding on the su court to re-exa nce the substitution applicatio as that the sole defendant Gugan The judgment and decree date person without any legal represe sed person is a nullity in the eye ded to decide the appeal on meri jun, therefore, ought to have b imited purpose of representing h of the present revision, Arjun h his legal representatives. Accord ubstituted in his place, who shal is clarified that the impleadm is only for the limited purpose o This does not amount to a judici

2.1985. That question remains e separate civil proceedings. e contention raised by learned c LR of Gugan, the estate of Sedh t merit at this stage. The very q the subject matter of the first app resent Regular Second Appeal ubstantive rights of inheritance. amine the matter on merits

on was rejected, the inevita n remained unrepresented before ed 05.03.1991 were thus rende entative on record. A decree pas es of law. The appellate court co its in such circumstances. een impleaded as LR of decea his estate in the proceedings. Dur has also passed away and is n dingly, his legal representatives l represent defendant Gugan in t ment of Arjun (through his le of defending the estate of Gugan al recognition of the validity of entirely open and, if necessary, counsel for the plaintiffs that in hu must automatically devolve up question of inheritance of Sedh peal. It would not be proper for t and Civil Revision, to record It will be open to the first appel after impleadment of the le

- able ered ssed ould ased ring now are this egal n in can pon hu's this any late

representatives o Gugan to Sedh including the rig would remain op Conclusion

22.

In dated 05.03.199 impugned judgm is also set aside. the first appeal o as the legal repr

23.

Pen

September 22, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh of Gugan. Further, if the appella hu's estate, the devolution of ghts claimed by Arjun or his le pen to be litigated in separate pro view of the above, the revision 91 rejecting Arjun's substitution ment and decree dated 05.03.199 . The matter is remanded back to on merits after impleading Arjun resentative of deceased defendan nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

ate court ultimately affirms claim f Gugan's own estate thereaf egal representatives under the W oceedings if need be. n petition is allowed and the or n application is set aside, and 91 dismissing the plaintiffs' app o the lower appellate court to reh n (through his legal representativ nt Gugan. stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- m of fter, Will, rder peal hear ves)