Jharkhand High Court
Meena Devi vs Gita Devi on 11 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 270 of 2024
Meena Devi, wife of Kamlesh Singh, aged about 45 years, resident of
Modichak, P.O. & P.S. Chouparan, District- Hazaribag
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Gita Devi, wife of Sudarshan Singh, resident of Lodhaway, P.O. & P.S.
Fatehpur, District- Gaya (Bihar)
2. Smriti Singh, son of Late Balbhadra Singh
3. Pradip Kumar Singh, son of Late Maheshwar Singh
4. Shambhu Narayan Singh, son of Late Kishun Singh
Respondent nos. 2 to 4 are resident of Village- Tandih, P.S. Chauparan,
P.O. Bela, District- Hazaribag ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For O.P. No.1 : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate
For O.P. Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, Advocate
-----
07/11.02.2025 Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Dilip Kumar
Chakraverty, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India praying therein to quash the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the
learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribag in Probate Case No.02/2022,
whereby, he has been pleased to allow the application filed by the
interveners/opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with
Section 151 of the CPC for adding them party to the said probate case.
3. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has instituted an application for grant of probate certificate
under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the properties which
were received by her from Matishwari Devi, wife of late Vidha Singh, who
executed a will on 17.12.2017 for the properties which were acquired by her
in terms of registered deed of sale no.315 of 1946 from Nandkeshwari Kumari,
wife of Ayodhya Singh. He submits that the testator remained in absolute
ownership and exclusive possession throughout her life over the properties.
The testatrix has not executed any other will in favour of any other person in
respect of the properties which were subject matter of the said probate case.
The properties which were subject matter of the said probate case is situated
in Khata no.07 of Mouza- Tandih, Pargana Chaiy, Thana- Chouparan, Thana
no.131. He further submits that the testatrix Matishwari Devi was aunt-in-law
of the petitioner and the petitioner had taken care of her every requirement
with full devotion and due to that on being satisfied with her behaviour, the
testatrix executed the said will in favour of the petitioner. According to him,
the testatrix has no child and she had only a step daughter, namely, Gita Devi,
who is opposite party no.1 in the present C.M.P. as well as in the said probate
case and she has supported the case of the petitioner. He then submits that
opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are strangers and they have got no relationship
with the said property and in spite of that, the learned court has been pleased
to allow the application filed by them, which is against the mandate of law.
He also submits that the right, title and interest cannot be looked into by the
learned court in the probate case and that is well settled. He relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pasupati
Nath Das (Dead) v. Chanchal Kumar Das (Dead) by legal
representative and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 547. He also
submits that the will was executed by the testatrix at the age of 87 years.
4. Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 submits that
opposite party no.1 has supported the case of the petitioner by way of filing
written statement in the said probate case.
5. Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2
to 4 submits that the testatrix is also aunt of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and
the said property is joint property. He further submits that the testatrix was
a teacher and thumb impression has been taken in the will, which cast doubt
upon the petitioner. He also submits that the learned court by a reasoned
order, has allowed the said application for intervention and there is no
illegality in the order of the learned court.
6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties,
it transpires from the record that the dispute is there with regard to
genuineness of the will and it has been claimed by opposite party nos. 2 to 4
that the testatrix was aunt of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the said property
is joint property.
7. Order I Rule 10 of the CPC enables the court to add any person as a
party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence in court
is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely
adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of
multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision.
Order I Rule 10 of the CPC empowers the court to substitute a party in the
suit who is a wrong person with a right person. If the court is satisfied that
the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and also that it is
necessary for the determination of the real matter in controversy to substitute
a party in the suit, it may direct it to be done.
8. When the court finds that in the absence of the persons sought to be
impleaded as a party to the suit, the controversy raised in the suit cannot be
effectively and completely settled, the court would do justice by impleading
such persons. Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC gives wide discretion to the Court
to deal with such a situation which may result in prejudicing the interests of
the affected party if not impleaded in the suit, and where the impleadment
of the said party is necessary and vital for the decision of the suit.
9. The expression "to settle all questions involved" used in Order I Rule
10 (2) of the CPC is susceptive to a liberal and wide interpretation, so as to
adjudicate all the questions pertaining to the subject matter thereof.
10. Coming to the facts of the present case, the genuineness of the will is
required to be proved in the probate case. The learned court has taken care
of all the aspects while passing the said order saying that so far as right, title
and interest is concerned, that cannot be a subject matter of the probate case
and only genuineness of the will has to be examined in the said probate case.
The learned court has further taken note of the fact that the testatrix being
a teacher, has put her thumb impression on the will and he has come to the
conclusion that if the jointness is prayed, interveners/opposite party nos. 2 to
4 are necessary parties.
11. Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC is also meant to avoid multiplicity of the
litigation. The learned court has given cogent reasoning while allowing the
said application for intervention filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
12. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, there is no illegality
in the impugned order and, as such, this petition is dismissed.
13. However, dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either
parties in the said probate case.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
