ANITA VERMA & ORS Vs. KARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs of the civil suit (Case No.386/16) which was instituted against the first respondent (the defendant) seeking reliefs in the nature of partition and separate possession, besides mandatory injunction qua property No.9/6021, Tapovan Street, Subhash Mohalla, Raghuvar Pura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110 031. They are aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2016 of the additional district judge (ADJ) whereby the second respondent has been allowed to be impleaded as a party to the suit on his application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

(2.) It is not disputed that the property, which is the subject-matter of the proceedings from which the petition arises, was originally owned by Smt. Ramo Devi, wife of the first respondent Karan Singh. The said original owner died on 26.06.2004. The first petitioner is the wife of the pre-deceased son of said Ramo Devi, second and third petitioners being the sons of the first petitioner, born out of her said wedlock with the son of Ramo Devi. The defendant in the suit, i.e. the first respondent is the husband of the deceased Ramo Devi.

(3.) It appears that first respondent had earlier filed a probate case (PC No.407/06/2005) setting up a Will dated 07.05.2004, statedly left behind as her last Will by Ramo Devi. It also appears that in the said proceedings, the second respondent had set up another Will dated 30.12.1998 in terms of which the title of the said property was to pass on to him after the death of Ramo Devi. It further appears that two other Wills were propounded in the said probate case, they being Will dated 208.1996 and 104.2004. The additional district Judge, after putting the case to trial, passed the judgment dated 05.04.2010, whereby letters of administration on the basis of Will dated 07.05.2004 was granted, the claim based on the other Wills having been rejected. It is the case of the petitioners in the afore mentioned civil suit that by virtue of Will dated 07.05.2004, they are entitled to 67% of share in the subject property, the defendant of the suit being entitled to the remainder. The judgment of the probate case is presently under challenge in appeal taken out by the second respondent.