1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO 988 OF 1985 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO 181 OF 1986 IN SUIT NO 2240 OF 1984 Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka .. Plaintiff Vs Sitaram Agarwal & Another .. Defendants And Sushilabai Nirmalkumar Rungta .. Applicant And Radheshyam Chiranjilal Goenka .. Applicant None for the Plaintiff Mr. J.S. Chandani for the Applicant – Sushilabai Rungta Mr. K.S. Jain for the Defendant CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J DATE : 28th APRIL, 2009. P.C.: 1. The suit was instituted in 1984 by Chiranjilal S Goenka inter alia for a declaration that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property, more particularly described in Schedule A; for an injunction restraining the Defendants from recovering rent and income of the property and; for a mandatory order directing the Rma CHS8098885280409.sxw 2 1st Defendant to remove himself from the property and to handover vacant possession to the Plaintiff and for mesne profits and accounts. The original Plaintiff, Chiranjilal died on 24th November, 1985. Upon the death of Chiranjilal, Chamber Summons 988 of 1985 was taken out by Sushilabai claiming under a Will dated 29th October, 1982 under which, she was appointed as a sole executrix. Chamber Summons 181 of 1986 was taken out by Radheshyam seeking himself to be brought on record in place of the original Plaintiff. Radheshyam claims that the Plaintiff had adopted him on 26th January, 1961. 2. The dispute as to who among the two applicants can lawfully represent the estate of Chiranjilal and is his lawful legal heir was decided by the Supreme Court in Chiranjilal Srilal Goenkar Vs Jasjit Singil; AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 266. The Supreme Court held that on the basis of the Probated Will, Sushilabai is the legal heir of the deceased Chiranjilal. The judgment of the Supreme Court decides the issue as to which of the two applicants to these proceedings would be entitled to be Rma CHS8098885280409.sxw 3 brought on record as legal heir of the deceased Plaintiff. Chamber Summons 988 of 1985 taken out by Sushilabai would have to be allowed while Chamber Summons No. 181 of 1986 taken out by Radheshyam would have to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant has stated that he has nothing to add in so far as which of the two applicants are entitled to be brought on reord as legal heirs of the deceased Plaintiff. 3. In the circumstances, Chamber Summons No.988 of 1985 is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (a). The amendment shall be carried out within a period of four weeks. Chamber Summons No. 181 of 1986 shall stand dismissed. (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J) Rma CHS8098885280409.sxw 4 Rma CHS8098885280409.sxw