Seshagiri Rao vs VIJAYA KUMARI

THIS revision petition is filed questioning an order made in I.A. No. 36/2002 dated 16.5.2003 permitting Mr. K. Seshagiri Rao, the father of the 12th opposite party, late Mr. Kiran Kumar, as a party to the PP. Proceedings on the ground that he is the legal heir of the 12th opposite party since deceased. The said application was ordered by an order dated 16.5.2003. Hence, this revision.

THE learned Counsel for the petitioner objects to the said order on the ground that in the PP, the petitioner namely, K. Seshagiri Rao cannot be impleaded inasmuch as no property invested in him on the death of his son. In fact his son was married and his widow as well as the mother of deceased are Class I heirs and as such impleading the petitioner does not serve any purpose. It is also his submission that Kiran Kumar died pending C.D. and orders were passed in the C.D. without bringing his legal representative and as such the order passed against Kiran Kumar is a non est. THEse are relevant aspects which were not taken into consideration by the District Forum before passing the impugned order. We have given our careful consideration to the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The order passed in respect of Kiran Kumar without impleading his L.Rs. after his death is void and non est.

So also, without impleading Class I heirs impleading the father, who is only a Class II heir but without proof of getting any assets of late Kiran Kumar is also bad.

HOWEVER, as the impugned order merely brings the father as L.R. of the deceased and nothing more, we would prefer to leave the order as it is as long as it does not affect the rights of the petition. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a warrant may be issued against the petitioner in execution of the order passed against his deceased son, Kiran Kumar. We make it clear that the District Forum will consider the objections whether the order passed against Kiran Kumar, after his death in the main C.D. is valid or void; whether the petitioner, who is the father and Class II heir, can be brought on record without proof of any assets being inherited by him on the death of his son, while leaving the Class I heirs like the widow and the mother of the deceased; and whether the family is a Hindu joint family or not, and decide before any order is passed in the PP against the petitioner. The District Forum will examine these aspects carefully and pass a detailed order before proceeding to take further steps in the PP touching the petition.

THE revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Revision disposed of.