IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 493 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.07.2010 ______________________________________________________ Sh. Sanjay Sood .....Petitioner. Versus Smt.Inderjit Kuar .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). Respondent’s husband, Pritam Singh, filed a suit against the present petitioner, impleading him as defendant No. 1 and also one Raj Dev Singh, who was impleaded as defendant No. 2, seeking a declaration that agreement to sell the suit property, executed by defendant No. 2, in favour of the present petitioner, impleaded as defendant No. 1, was illegal and not binding upon him, as said Raj Dev Singh had no concern with the suit property. By way of further relief, decree for possession of the suit property has been sought. 2. It is stated that the suit property was part of the joint property of the wife of said Raj Dev Singh and Pritam Singh, the deceased plaintiff, and that in a family settlement, the suit property 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- had fallen to the share of Pritam Singh. It is stated that on the death of his wife, deceased defendant No. 2, Raj Dev Singh, acting as the owner of the suit property, agreed to sell the same to the present petitioner and on the strength of that agreement, petitioner occupied the suit property. 3. After the institution of the suit, Raj Dev Singh died and an application was moved by the respondent, alleging that he had no legal heir and that the present petitioner, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1, was the legal heir on account of the agreement to sell and cause of action against the petitioner, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1, survived. That application has been allowed by the Civil Court, vide impugned order dated 9th June, 2009, Annexure P-5. 4. Petitioner’s grievance is that Raj Dev Singh is survived by a sister and, therefore, she is required to be impleaded as party. Name and particulars of that sister are not mentioned in the reply. 5. The facts of the case show that Raj Dev Singh, deceased defendant, considered himself to be the owner of the suit property and he agreed to sell the same to the present petitioner. Allegation of the plaintiff is that Raj Dev Singh was not the owner of the property and that the property belonged to the plaintiff. The present petitioner, after the death of Raj Dev Singh, the prospective vendor, has interest in the suit property on the strength of the agreement to sell and, therefore, so far as the present lis is concerned, she can be said to be in a position to effectively -: 3 :- represent the estate of the deceased Raj Dev Singh. 6. Therefore, present petition is dismissed, however it is left open to be decided by the Civil Court at the time of the final disposal of the case whether the same had abated on account of the death of Raj Dev Singh, defendant No. 2, or not. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (Surjit Singh) Judge July 16th, 2010 (rajni)