IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 33 / 2009 PETITIONERS ^l. ^ Smt. Rahibai, W/o Gulab Soni R/o Village Defendants^ Q05' ^ Anjani, —_„„_ Bhuneshwar aged about 30 years, S/o Late Maheshram ^ Dharmendra aged bout 26 years, S/o Late Maheshram Parmeshwar aged bout 24 years, S/o Late Maheshram 4- s~"" Petitioner no.-^=to 4 R/o Village Rogadih Tahsil Baderajpur Bishrampuri, Distt. Bastar ^^yy ^.^..°': y VERSUS RESPONDENT ^l. Padumsingh (dead) aged about 65 years, -'>laintiff S/o Kanhasingh Parihar, R/o Sargopal Tahsil Baderajpur Bishrampuri, Distt. Bastar Proposed Plaintiff I^K Bhupendra Parihar aged about 40 years, S/o Late Padumsingh J-b. Hitendra Singh Parihar aged bout 37 years, S/o Late Padumsingh lc. Smt. Vimla parihar aged about 65 years, W/o Late Padumsingh Ijd. Ku. Garyatri parihar aged about 30 years, D/o Late Padumsingh^,_^,^\ -i^^, %^^^ ?^^) RtS.Nc/A^~+<?''4-^rp-]'o^^^'sn'y'^^ ^r" v" ' ^'^s^^y} I/ The State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Jagdalpur Ts^&^. CIVIL REVISION UNDBR SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^. -HC—78 *fli*i^i ynwv^ ~3~5ST ^||<q|<rjq, ^Tl1<H^|(o, [®|CrlH^< _.............C:..:.^..-..^.£..:..3.M ^^ 200^ w^r'^^ ("i°ii^<^) ^yi^T ^5T RTiJch 'TOT 311^1 ^NJeh I^TTW^rf^ 371^1 S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarfwal 30-10-2009 Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. No.2. Heard on admission. The instant revision is direct^d 2009 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II| whereby and whereunder an applil applicants No.1a to 1d under Order % allowed. The facts briefly stated are th< Singh has instituted a suit againstj declaration of title over the suit prop^ executed by Bhanginbai in his possession. During its pendency th^ proposed plaintiffs 1a to 1d admittedl application for substitution of their By filing reply to application, th| Bhanginbai was not legally weddep therefore, the property belongs to Bhc legal representative of deceased substituted in his place, as no right to narflies Qhl^i^l<fll 'HPT^f ^ feT^ <f^1^1< '^^TH3?T^T f4r the applicants. A|dvocate for the State/non-applicant against the order dated 28-07- Keshkal in Civil Suit No.l-A/2009 ;ation of proposed plaintiffs/non- j2 Rule 3 of C.P.C. filed by the was ^t the deceased plajntiff Praduman the applicants seeking relief of ^rty,basing his claim on will deed and for declaration of his said Praduman Singh died. The ]/ his wife and children filed above in his place. applicants have stated that since 1 wife of Praduman Singh and |ngjnbaj cannot be inherited by the Singh and they cannot be ^ue sun/ives in their favour. fal/our Prafcluman XI-HC—78 WHCTT W*<IIG»» T^T r^N«n<Li, ^Til<4'li<o, I^<n«-i^< .c.:A.^.o.A^.. ^ £ -w^ioo ^ ^CT^T TR^ (^f^^T) ^T^T^Tf^W IT^T? ^T^¥l^TPF Kvr iFRrrw^N^^T -2- The trial Court vide impugned by the applicants and allowed the plaintiffs. Shri Parag Kotecha, learned >ubmit that as admittedly the title holdjer is not legally wedded wife ofthe dec^ |the plaintiff, the legal representatives| [cannot inherit the same as under Ord< |to sue survive in their favour andl |application bythe learnecf trialCourt i^ 1 have heard learned counsel [order impugned and the copy of plaint| As per the averments in para |deceased) Praduman Singh filed the Ipropertyon the strength ofwill execut labsolute and exclusive owner whic >ucceeded by his leg,al representativj |the non-applicants No. 1a to representatives of the deceased entitl( }his place, as right to sue would surviv^ In view of above, the learned [irregularity and material illegality in revision is liable to be and is hereby di •Q^P^Z^ T[F?^f "^ ft^ <F?1'^K ^3:f^H3?i^I |order rejected the objection raised japplication filed by the proposed |counsel for the applicants would of property was Bhanginbai who iased and therefore, after death of |of the deceased Praduman Singh ir 22 Rule 3 ofthe C.P.C., no right therefore, granting of the said illegal and without jurisdiction. flor the applicants and perused the |(Annexure P-1). |5 of the plaint, the plaintiff (since >uit claiming the title over the suit Ijed by deceased Bhanginbai as its \h certainly on proof would be /^s after his death, and therefore, l|d admittedly being the legal ld for substitution oftheir names in in theirfavour. frial Court has not committed any p^ssing the order. Therefore, the ^missed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge \- ^