Gujar Mahto & Others vs Sukhdeo Mahto & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 889 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   S.A. No.91 of 2016
                           ------

Gujar Mahto & Others .... .... .... Appellants Versus Sukhdeo Mahto & Others .... .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate

------

Order No.11 Dated- 23/02/2023 I.A. No.1322 of 2023 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this Interlocutory Application has been filed with a prayer to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.19 namely Sohan Mahto who died on 01.01.2023 leaving behind his only seven legal representatives whose names, parentages and addresses have been mentioned in para-3 of the instant interlocutory application. It is next submitted that this interlocutory application with the prayer for substitution was filed on 07.02.2023, hence, the prayer for substitution is within time. It is further submitted that unless the substitution, as prayed for, is allowed, the appellants will be highly prejudiced.

3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer for substitution of only seven legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.19 namely Sohan Mahto, as prayed for, is allowed.

4. Registry is directed to incorporate the names of only seven legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.19 namely Sohan Mahto whose names, parentages and addresses have been mentioned in para-3 of the instant interlocutory application as respondent No.19 (a) to 19 (g) and to mention the word 'Dead' against the name of respondent No.19 namely Sohan Mahto with red ink in the cause title of the appeal memo.

5. This interlocutory application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) S.A. No.91 of 2016 This appeal will be heard on the following substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether the basis of denial of inheritance to the plaintiff by the 1st appellate court, on the ground that her father was not alive by the year 2005 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prakash & Others vs. Phulavati & Others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 36 which was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 can be treated as a gross illegality?

Call for the lower court records. Issue notice to the respondents.

The appellants are directed to file requisites for service of notice upon the respondents by registered post with A/D as well as under ordinary process within six weeks failing which; this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

Rule is made returnable within six weeks.

List this appeal thereafter.

Animesh/                                      (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)