Amrit Lal vs Smt. Nanbai
2022 Latest Caselaw 6011 Chatt

                                                                                     NAFR
                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     First Appeal No. 183 of 2012

                 Amrit Lal S/o Shri Vijay Lal Chandra, Occupation Masoon, R/o Village
                 Dadaidih, P.S. Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG)

                                                                              ---- Appellant

                                               Versus

              1. Smt. Nanbai Widow Of Jagatram Chandra, R/o Village Dadaidih, P.S.
                 Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG)
              2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, CG
                                                                       ---- Respondents

Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for appellant.

26.09.2022 Shri Roop Naik, Advocate for respondent no.1 Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, P.L. for respondent no.2/State.

The matter today has been taken up for consideration of I.A. No.06 whereby one Kanhaiya Lal Chandra has sought permission to be substituted in place of the deceased respondent no.1 and I.A. No.07 whereby one Kuldeep Chandra has also sought permission to be substituted in place of respondent no.1.

On the previous date of hearing i.e. on 15.03.2021, this Court had referred the matter back to the concerned Trial Court for conducting a summary enquiry and giving an opinion as to who has to be substituted among the aforesaid two persons claiming themselves to be substituted in place of the deceased respondent no.1 Nanbai.

The Trial Court after conducting an enquiry submitted a report on 11.01.2022 in favour of the proposed respondent in I.A. No.7 namely Kuldeep Chandra S/o Vijay Chandra.

Learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondent Kanhaiya Lal in whose favour he claims to have a registered Will executed by the deceased Nan Bai opposes the finding given by the Trial Court as also disputes the finding given on the evidence which has come during the course of enquiry itself. Learned counsel appearing for Kanhaiya Lal submits that the entire circumstances reflect great element of suspicion and doubt so far as the execution of the Will dated 21.10.2016 in favour of Kuldeep Chandra is concerned. Moreover, the statement of Kuldeep itself would reveal that the Will had been prepared and executed by his father Vijay Chandra and that at the time of death, Nan Bai was in fact residing with Kanhaiya Lal.

All said and done, since the enquiry ordered by this Court to the Trial Court was one under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC which is a sort of summary enquiry, this Court accepting the view of the Trial Court dated 11.01.2022 allows I.A. No.7 for substitution of Kuldeep chandra in place of the deceased respondent no.1 Nanbai.

As regards the objection and the right of Kanhaiya Lal, taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Dashrath Rao Kate Vs. Brij Mohan Srivastava, (2010) 1 SCC 277 and more recent decision in the case of Varadarajan Vs. Kanakavalli and others, (2020) 11 SCC 598, the right of the said objector namely Kanhaiya Lal would stand reserved for appropriate legal remedies that are available to him under law.

The view of this Court in allowing I.A. No.07 based upon the summary report of the Trial Court would not come in the way of Kanhaiya Lal keeping in view the said two land mark judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in the preceding paragraph.

As a consequence, I.A. No.07 stands allowed. Let necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week and the matter be listed for hearing thereafter.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE

Khatai