AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiff revisionist.
The plaintiff revisionist has preferred these revisions against the orders dated 1.4.2016 passed by the court of first instance in Succession Suit Nos. 53 of 2015 and 54 of 2015 (Smt. Krishna Devi v. Smt. Dayawati and others).
The revisions were presented for reporting on 4.7.2016 and were reported to be beyond time by two days. Subsequently, on the date of filing they have been reported to be beyond time by 31 days.
The delay of 31 days as reported has occurred because of improper reporting and confusion with regard to maintainability of the revisions due to the valuation. The fact that the revisions were presented on 4.7.2016 reveals that there was no deliberate delay in filing the revision accept for two days.
The delay of 2 days in filing the revisions as initially reported is sufficiently explained and the cause shown for the delay is adequate.
Accordingly, delay in filing the revisions is condoned.
Delay condonation application nos. 237177 of 2016 and 237187 are allowed.
Office to allot regular number to the revisions.
Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava on merits of the revisions.
The plaintiff revisionist moved two applications for grant of succession certificate in respect of the Estate of the deceased Babu Singh who had died on 2.12.2014. Respondent no. 1 Pankaj Verma moved applications in the said cases under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for his impleadment on the ground that the deceased Babu Ram was his maternal grandfather and that he had left behind a Will dated 1.2.2013 bequeathing his properties to him and therefore he is a necessary party in the proceedings.
The court below has allowed the impleadment application as respondent no. 1 is claiming rights in the properties left behind by the deceased Babu Singh on the basis of his Will.
The argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff revisionist is that respondent no. 1 is a very cleaver and cunning person and that he has forged and manipulated the aforesaid Will.
The Will on the basis of which respondent no. 1 is claiming rights may ultimately turn out to be false and fictitious but nonetheless at this stage, as the respondent has claimed rights in the property on the basis of the aforesaid Will, he is a necessary and proper party. His impleadment would not cause any injustice to either of the contesting parties. Accordingly, I do not consider that any jurisdictional error has been committed by the courts below in permitting impleadment of respondent no. 1.
The courts below is directed to consider if two suits for grant of succession certificate in respect of the properties of the same deceased person on behalf of the same person are maintainable.
The revisions lack merit and is dismissed with the above observation.