Full Text
Translation output
K
A-IO
% 15.07.2011
Present: Mr.Rajat Aneja and Ms.Vidhi Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
+ CM (M) No.965/2010
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 22nd April, 2011 by virtue of which the application filed by the apphcant therein, namely, Shri Ravinder Seth seeking impleadment as the sole legal heir of deceased Sheela Devi had been allowed. Attention has been drawn to the application preferred before the First Appellate Court. In this application, it has been pleaded that by virtue of a Will dated 20th February, 1996 executed by the deceased as also the Codicil dated 2nd April, 2008, the apphcant Ravinder Seth is the legatee under the Will qua the suit property. In this view of the matter, he had pleaded that he should be permitted to be impleaded as the sole legal representative of the deceased qua this property.
In the reply filed to the said application, the primary contention of the non-applicant was that there are other legal heirs of the deceased as well, i.e. two sisters and one brother and this has not been mentioned in the said application. The apphcant has played a fraud upon the Court.
It is relevant to state that the non-applicant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased; she is not claiming herself to be a legal heir.
The present suit had been filed for possession of the ground floor of the suit property, i.e. premises bearing No.6/70, Geeta Colony, New Delhi. The suit had been dismissed. The appeal had been filed by the
2011:DHC:7764 u T
A-IO
% 15.07.2011
Present: Mr.Rajat Aneja and Ms.Vidhi Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
+ CM (M) No.965/2010
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 22nd April, 2011 by virtue of which the application filed by the apphcant therein, namely, Shri Ravinder Seth seeking impleadment as the sole legal heir of deceased Sheela Devi had been allowed. Attention has been drawn to the application preferred before the First Appellate Court. In this application, it has been pleaded that by virtue of a Will dated 20th February, 1996 executed by the deceased as also the Codicil dated 2nd April, 2008, the apphcant Ravinder Seth is the legatee under the Will qua the suit property. In this view of the matter, he had pleaded that he should be permitted to be impleaded as the sole legal representative of the deceased qua this property.
In the reply filed to the said application, the primary contention of the non-applicant was that there are other legal heirs of the deceased as well, i.e. two sisters and one brother and this has not been mentioned in the said application. The apphcant has played a fraud upon the Court.
It is relevant to state that the non-applicant is the daughter-in-law of the deceased; she is not claiming herself to be a legal heir.
The present suit had been filed for possession of the ground floor of the suit property, i.e. premises bearing No.6/70, Geeta Colony, New Delhi. The suit had been dismissed. The appeal had been filed by the
2011:DHC:7764 u T
deceased Sheela Devi. During the pendency of the appeal she had expired; the apphcant had moved the afore-noted apphcation seeking impleadment in terms of the Will left by his deceased mother where interms of the Will, the suit property, i.e. ground floor of suit premises bearing No.6/70, Geeta Colony, New Delhi had been bequeathed to him.
Admittedly, the non-applicant is not a legal heir; the locus standi of the non-applicant to dispute the impleadment of Ravinder Seth as the sole legal heir has been objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent. This objection has force.
The impugned order suffers no illegality. The direction in the impugned order while allowing the application further states that the validity of the will and codicil raised by the respondent shall be kept open.
No interference is called.
The petition is dismissed.
Trial Court Record be sent back.
JULY 15, 2011
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:7764
Admittedly, the non-applicant is not a legal heir; the locus standi of the non-applicant to dispute the impleadment of Ravinder Seth as the sole legal heir has been objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent. This objection has force.
The impugned order suffers no illegality. The direction in the impugned order while allowing the application further states that the validity of the will and codicil raised by the respondent shall be kept open.
No interference is called.
The petition is dismissed.
Trial Court Record be sent back.
JULY 15, 2011
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:7764
JUDGMENT