Civil Revision No.6384 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6384 of 2008 Date of Decision:30.01.2009 Sawan Singh & anr. ....petitioners Versus Union of India & ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.S.K.Sharma,Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 08.08.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar in Execution Petition No.53 of 2005 whereby on an application filed by the petitioners for impleading them as legal heirs of Kartar Singh, deceased on the basis of a Will dated 10.01.2005, it has been ordered that all the legal heirs of the deceased decree holder be impleaded as party instead of the applicants, only. Originally, the execution application was filed by Harbans Singh and Kartar Singh, who were the decree holders. During the course of pendency of proceedings decree holder Kartar Singh died on 24.01.2005. Petitioners moved an application to implead them as legal representatives of deceased decree holder Kartar Singh. In the said application, it was mentioned that Kartar Singh had three sons namely Narain Singh, Sawan Singh and Khazan Singh along with three daughters namely Paloo@ Narinder Kaur, Jeeta @ Surjit Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur. The petitioners alleged that decree holder Kartar Singh had executed a Civil Revision No.6384 of 2008 2 Will dated 10.01.2005 in their favour (i.e.Sawan singh and Prabpal Singh s/o Khazan Singh) and therefore they are entitled to receive the amount deposited in favour of deceased decree holder Kartar Singh to the exclusion of other legal representatives of deceased Kartar Singh i.e.Narain Singh, Paloo @ Narinder Kaur, Jeeta @ Surjit Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur and to the exclusion of Harwinder Kaur, Jagdeep Kaur and Parveen Kaur LRs of Khazan Singh(deceased) son of decree holder Kartar Singh. Along with this application the petitioners produced a photo copy of the Will allegedly executed by decree holder Kartar Singh on 10.01.2005. At the time of consideration of the said application before the Executing Court the learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that the other legal heirs have no objection if the amount be released in their favour. However, no affidavit on behalf of other legal heirs was filed. After considering the aforesaid application and keeping in view the fact that Kartar Singh decree holder died on 24.01.2005 i.e.only after 14 days of the execution of the Will dated 10.01.2005 and also keeping in view the fact that the matter was decided by Apex Court on 26.10.2005 but no such Will was produced by the petitioners on record during those proceedings and further that original Will alleged to be executed by decree holder Kartar Singh in favour of the petitioners was not produced on record and that no affidavits of other natural heirs giving no objection in favour of the petitioners were placed on record, the Additional District Judge, Amritsar disposed of the application for impleadment filed by the petitioners and ordered to implead all the legal heirs of Kartar Singh, decree holder as party in the execution proceedings. Challenging the aforesaid order of the Executing Court impleading all the legal heirs of decree holder Kartar Singh, counsel for the petitioners has argued that inter se dispute between the legal heirs cannot Civil Revision No.6384 of 2008 3 be decided by the Executing Court and execution of decree cannot be deferred on this account and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal Singh versus Sher Singh and others 2006(3) RCR(Civil)842. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no dispute with the proposition of law, to the effect that inter se dispute between the legal heirs cannot be decided by the Executing Court and even if one of the legal heirs is able to execute the decree, he shall be taking the estate of the deceased, subject to the rights of all the rightful claimants, which may be determined in any subsequent suit. However, on facts of the present case, the position is different. In the present execution the petitioners have applied for impleadment not on behalf of all the legal heirs of Kartar Singh deceased but as legal heirs of Kartar Singh deceased on the basis of Will to the exclusion of other legal/natural heirs. The matter is still pending before the Executing Court and vide impugned order the Executing Court has ordered only to bring on record all the legal heirs of Kartar Singh,deceased, in the execution proceedings which were allegedly initiated by Kartar Singh, deceased himself. In the present case, the Executing Court has not decided the genuineness of Will against the petitioners and the same has been left open. In Charanjit Singh and anr. Versus Bharatinder Singh and others (1987-1)91 P.L.R.403 in similar facts all the legal heirs were impleaded to represent the estate of deceased while leaving the question about the genuineness and validity of the Will open. In Mrs.Annapam Prauthi and others vs.Smt.Rajen Bal and others AIR 1988 S.C.2041 in similar circumstances it was held that it would be open to the applicant to claim her right under the Will in an independent proceeding but such Civil Revision No.6384 of 2008 4 dispute cannot be adjudicated upon in a suit against the third person. It may also be seen that in the present case the applicants do not want their impleadment simpliciter to execute the decree in favour of all the natural heirs but the application has been filed for their impleadment to the exclusion of others and to receive the amount of compensation denying the others to contest their claim set up by the petitioners on the basis of Will dated 10.01.1995. Moreover as noticed above, the said Will was executed on 10.01.1995 whereas Kartar Singh died on 24.01.2005 and the acquisition proceedings were decided by the Apex Court on 26.10.2005 yet the petitioners were never brought on record as legal heirs in those proceedings. Thus, I find no ground to interfere in the order of the Executing Court. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 30.01.2009 neenu