Civil Revision No.4672 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4672 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.11.2010 Ram Kishan ....Petitioner Versus Parmeshwari and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Third party/petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar, thereby rejecting the application of the third party/petitioner seeking impleadment in the suit filed by the wife of the present petitioner. Parmeshwari wife of the present petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against her sister-in- law and son. In the suit filed by the wife of the petitioner, petitioner has moved application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stating therein that initially Paras Ram, father of the petitioner, was owner in possession of the land in question and after his death, petitioner has inherited the Civil Revision No.4672 of 2010 -2- property, hence petitioner has every interest in the suit and is most necessary party. Learned trial Court has observed that petitioner was challaned for murdering his own father i.e. Paras Ram, hence as per the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Vellikannu Vs. R. Singaperumal and another, 2005(2) HRR 442 (SC), the son, who has murdered his own father, is not entitled to inherit the property of the deceased father. Learned trial Court has further observed that learned Assistant Collector has directed the mutation of the property left by Paras Ram in favour of widow of Paras Ram, Smt. Sarti and daughter Kitabo. Order of mutation was never challenged either by the petitioner or his wife. It is further observed by the learned trial Court that wife of the petitioner, claiming share in the property left by her father-in-law, has already filed the present suit; however, the petitioner, who is guilty of murdering his own father, has not inherited any property and as such cannot be said to be proper party. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order impugned. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge November 09, 2010 R.S.