Gunwant Kaur vs Karamjeet Kaur Grewal and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Gunwant Kaur defendant has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 17.9.2010, Annexure P/1 passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P/2 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC (in short, CPC). Suit has been filed by respondent No. 1 Karamjeet Kaur Grewal as sole plaintiff against the petitioner Gunwant Kaur as sole defendant. The dispute relates to inheritance of Amarjit Singh since deceased-husband of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 in the suit claimed herself to be adoptive mother of Amarjit Singh and therefore, her sole class-I heir and sought to disinherit the widow on the plea that she had murdered deceased Amarjit Singh.

Application Annexure P/2 under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved jointly by both the respondents i.e. Karamjeet Kaur Grewal original sole plaintiff and her husband Sukhdev Singh alleging that the petitioner-defendant in her written statement had pleaded that Sukhdev Singh was unmarried at the time of alleged adoption of Amarjit Singh and got subsequently married with respondent No. 1 Karamjeet Kaur Grewal who would, therefore, become step mother of Amarjit Singh and would not be his heir. Respondents alleged that in that event, respondent No. 2 being adoptive father of Amarjit Singh would be his sole class-II legal heir. Consequently, impleadment of respondent No. 2 as plaintiff No. 2 and consequential alternative relief in favour of plaintiff No. 2 regarding inheritance of Amarjit Singh has been sought by making application Annexure P/2.

The petitioner by filing reply Annexure P2/A opposed the aforesaid application and controverted the averments made therein.

Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/1 has allowed application Annexure P/2. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the instant revision petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

At the outset, counsel for the petitioner pointed out that after moving application Annexure P/2 dated 2.6.2010, respondents also moved application dated 17.8.2010 Annexure P/3 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in continuation of application Annexure P/2 and respondents by moving application Annexure P/3 want to challenge the sale deeds executed by defendant-petitioner relating to part of the suit land during pendency of the suit and also want to implead the vendees of the sale deeds as party to the suit. Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that impugned order Annexure P/1 is not clear as to which application out of applications Annexures P/2 and P/3 has been allowed by the trial court and in any event only one application has been allowed by the said order and other application has not been decided.

In the aforesaid context, it has to be noticed that perusal of impugned order reveals that by the said order, application Annexure P/2 only has been allowed as would be clear on combined reading of order Annexure P/1 and application Annexure P/2. Application Annexure P/3 has not been decided by the trial court by order Annexure P/1. Petitioner or respondents may request the trial court to decide application Annexure P/3 in accordance with law. The trial court is directed to do so, if the said application has not yet been decided.

As regards application Annexure P/2, counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No. 2 is claiming independent right in the suit land and therefore, he could not be impleaded as party to the instant suit and he should have filed separate suit. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of this Court namely Hazura Singh Vs. Sukhdev Singh and Another, and Harcharan Singh and another Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab Chandigarh and others,

The aforesaid contention is untenable. Respondent No. 2 is claiming relief in the suit in the alternative. If respondent No. 1 is held to be adoptive mother and heir of deceased Amarjit Singh, then respondent No. 2 shall have no right to inheritance of Amarjit Singh. On the other hand, if respondent No. 1 is held to be step mother of Amarjit Singh, then respondent No. 2, if proved to be adoptive father of Amarjit Singh and if petitioner as widow is found to have been disinherited having allegedly murdered Amarjit Singh, would be entitled to inheritance of Amarjit Singh. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 could not be impleaded as co-plaintiff to the instant suit. Judgments in the cases of Hazura Singh (supra) and Harcharan Singh (supra) are not applicable because in those cases, applications for impleadment of third party were opposed by plaintiff/writ petitioner whereas in the instant case, respondent No. 1-original plaintiff has herself sought impleadment of respondent No. 2 as plaintiff No. 2 to the suit. Other facts in the aforesaid reported judgments are also different. The said judgments are not attracted to the facts of the instant case. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application Annexure P/2 filed by the respondents has been rightly allowed by the trial court. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for inheritance by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition being merit less is hereby dismissed. The trial court is directed to decide in accordance with law, application Annexure P/3 moved by the respondents if the said application has not yet been decided.