- (1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two revision petitions i.e. Civil Revision No. 3786 of 2010 titled "Sandeep Kaur v. Surmukh Singh (since deceased) through his Legal Heirs and Others" and Civil Revision No. 3787 of 2010 titled as "Sandeep Kaur v. Taljinder Singh and Others". For the purpose of adjudication, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 3786 of 2010.
(2.) Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 28.4.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala, whereby application, filed by petitioner-Sandeep Kaur for deciding the date of death of defendant No.1-Surjit Kaur was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact Randhir Singh was owner of the land and after his death, mutation was sanctioned in favour of his sons. Rajinder Singh died on 16.7.1995. He was bachelor and his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his mother. Mutation Nos. 5731 & 5950 were entered regarding the estate of Rajinder Singh and mutation Nos. 5951 & 5732 was entered regarding the estate of Sampuran Kaur. Civil Suit No. 6 dated 7.1.1997 was filed by Sarmukh and another regarding the estate of Sampuran Kaur on the basis of alleged unregistered will deed dated 10.9.1994. Status of Surjit Kaur being wife of Harjinder Singh was denied.
(3.) An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the petitioner to be impleaded as a party being adopted daughter of Surjit Kaur vide registered adoption deed dated 5.8.1999. Application was contested by the plaintiff/respondents and the trial Court allowed the same on 18.11.2008. Revision petition was filed before this Court and vide order dated 25.8.2009, the said order was set aside and application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application to determine the date of death of Surjit Kaur, which is unheard of since 9.2.2001 and to implead the applicant as legal heir of Surjit Kaur and the same has been dismissed by taking erroneous view vide order dated 28.4.2010, which is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that principles of res judicata are not applicable to the decision of the application and the Court below should have permitted the applicant to be impleaded as legal heir of Surjit Kaur to contest the suit and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.;