Civil Revision No.2947 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2947 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 17, 2008 Satnam Singh & others ...Petitioners VERSUS Gurcharan Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the order declining the prayer of the petitioners to implead them as legal heirs of Sewa Singh in a suit titled “Satnam Singh and another Versus Sewa Singh and others” and further declining their prayer to amend the plaint, they have filed Civil Revision No.2947 of 2007 : 2 : this revision petition. Petitioners have filed a suit seeking declaration that they are owners of half share of land measuring 29 kanals 18 marlas, detail of which is furnished in the plaint. This property is stated to be an ancestral property and as such coparcenary and when the suit was filed, Sewa Singh, father of the petitioners, was alive. Sewa Singh died on 14.11.2006 and as such it became necessary to implead his daughters as party to the suit. For this purpose, it became necessary for amending the plaint and accordingly applications were filed for impleading respondents No.6 and 7 as legal heirs of Sewa Singh as earlier they were not necessary their father Sewa Singh being alive. Alongwith this, application under Order 6 Ruled 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint was also filed. It is noticed from the pleadings that Sewa Singh left behind the petitioners and defendants. It is then mentioned that respondent No.6 Gurcharan Kaur alias Charan Kaur and respondent No.7 Babli alias Babbi are also legal heirs of Sewa Singh being his daughters and they could not be impleaded being married daughters and thus not coparceners. The prayer of the petitioners for impleading respondents No.6 and 7 as defendants and for amendment of the plaint has, however, been declined by the trial court. On notice being issued, the defendants, as originally impleaded, filed reply and opposed the application. On merits, it is stated that Sewa Singh was not owner in possession of any part of the suit property at the time of institution of this suit and even upto Civil Revision No.2947 of 2007 : 3 : the date of his death. Accordingly, it is pleaded that the question of succession of Sewa Singh on his death does not arise. It is further pleaded that respondents No.6 and 7 are not legal heirs of Sewa Singh. The plea further is that in case it is found that they are legal heirs of Sewa Singh, then also they need not be impleaded as defendants as respondents No.2 to 4 are the only legal heirs as deceased Sewa Singh had left a registered Will dated 28.5.1985 in favour of respondents No.2 to 4. Accordingly, it is stated that respondents No.6 and 7 are not necessary parties and are not liable to be impleaded on the death of Sewa Singh. It is noticed that petitioners are sons of Sewa Singh and so to are respondents No.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 Satwant Kaur is wife of Surjit Singh another son of deceased Sewa Singh and respondent No.5 Bachan Kaur is wife of deceased Sewa Singh. The petitioners are seeking declaration to the effect that they are owners of ½ share of land measuring 29 kanals 18 marlas and other residential and non-residential property. This plea is dependent upon setting-aside of a decree dated 29.2.1992 passed in civil suit No.690/91 titled “Balbir Singh Vs. Sewa Singh” on the ground that it is illegal, ultra-vires, void and against the principles of natural justice and as such not binding on the rights of plaintiffs. It can thus be seen that the right of Sewa Singh in the property in dispute would depend upon setting-aside of decree dated 29.2.1992 and till then even Sewa Singh is not owner of the property in dispute, right in which is being claimed by the plaintiff-petitioners. It is noticed that Sewa Singh was married to Smt.Bhago and petitioners are born out of this wedlock. Before the petitioners could gain majority, their mother died Civil Revision No.2947 of 2007 : 4 : and their father Sewa Singh married Bachan Kaur respondent No.5. Out of this wedlock, four sons and daughters were born, who have been arrayed as defendants in the suit. It is further claimed that the suit property was inherited by late Sewa Singh, father of the petitioners, from his fore-fathers and thus is a joint family coparcenary property in his hands and respondents No.1 to 3 have purchased the properties detailed in column (B) of head-note of plaint from the income derived from ancestral property and hence would also be an ancestral property in the hands of the defendants. The facts as pleaded are disputed by the respondents- defendants, who have further asserted that decree under challenge is legal, valid and in accordance with natural justice. It is, thus, noticed that Sewa Singh deceased had no property in his name when the suit was instituted. It is rightly observed by the trial court that once Sewa Singh did not have any property, question of opening of succession would not arise. It is further noticed by the trial court that it is yet to be determined if the property in dispute has been rightly transferred and that this property in the hands of Sewa Singh was a joint Hindu family coparcenary property or not. The question of succession, as noticed by the trial court, would arise only in case this property reverts back to Sewa Singh. Still the right of Babli and Gurcharan Kaur would depend upon the adjudication of a Will dated 28.5.1985 and it is required to be determined whether the succession would be on the basis of a Will or otherwise. Keeping this in view, it can be said that respondents No.6 and 7 are not proper parties. Even otherwise, this application appears to have been filed beyond the period of limitation. Sewa Civil Revision No.2947 of 2007 : 5 : Singh died on 14.11.2006 and application was required to be filed within ninety days, i.e., upto 13.2.2007, especially so when it is not possible for the petitioners to plead that they had not come to know about the death of Sewa Singh on 14.11.2006. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which may call for interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. January 17, 2007 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE