SURESH KUMAR BANSAL versus KRISHNA BANSAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 14-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 419 
·i 
SURESH KUMAR BANSAL 
A 
• 
v. 
KRISHNA BANSAL AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8271 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 14, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.22, r.5; s.2(11) -
lmp/eadment of heir/LR - Eviction suit - Landlord-plaintiff 
died -
His brother (appellant) sought impleadmentl c 
substitution as LR/heir on basis of Will allegedly executed by 
deceased plaintiff - Proceedings instituted by appellant for 
grant of probate pending in different coutt - Whether appellant 
entitled to be impleaded/substituted in the pending eviction 
suit alongwith natural heirs and legal representatives of D 
~ 
i 
deceased plaintiff, namely, his wife (respondent no.1) and 
others - Held, Yes - Question of genuineness of Will cannot 
be conclusively gone into by Rent Coutt in a proceeding for 
substitution in a pending eviction suit - In order to shorten 
.... 
litigation and consider rival claims of patties, proper course 
E 
is to bring all heirs and legal representatives of deceased 
plaintiff on record including legal representatives claiming on 
basis of Will - Rent Control and Eviction. 
. ~-
During pendency of an eviction suit, the plaintiff-
landlord died. His widow, respondent no.1, filed 
F 
application for impleadment/substitution as heir and legal 
representative of the deceased plaintiff. Appellant, 
.. 
brother of plaintiff, also sought substitution/ impleadment 
as heir and legal representative on basis of a Will 
G 
allegedly executed by the deceased plaintiff. 
l 
The Trial Court allowed the application filed by 
.. 
respondent no.1 but rejected the application of appellant 
on ground that execution of Will was suspicious. The 
419 
H 
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A order was. upheld by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants inter alia 
contended that since separate probate proceedings had 
already been instituted by the appellant for grant of 
8 probate in the competent Court of law which was 
pending, the only course open to the court was to 
substitute or to implead the appellant in the eviction 
proceedings alongwith natural heirs and legal 
representatives of the deceased plaintiff i.e. the entire 
proceedings should be carried not only by the natural 
C heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff 
but also by the appellant subject to grant of probate by 
a competent court of law. 
The question which thus arose for consideration in 
D the present appeal was whether the appellant, on the 
death of the original plaintiff, was entitled to be 
impleaded/substituted in the suit for eviction alongwith 
the natural heirs and legal representatives of the 
E 
deceased, namely, respondent no.1 and others. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The impugned order of the High Court is 
liable to be interfered with, and the application for 
impleadment filed at the instance of the appellant on the 
F basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by the 
deceased plaintiff must be allowed and the appellant must 
be impleaded in the suit along with the natural heirs and 
legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, subject to 
grant of probate by a competent court of law. If at this 
G stage, the appellant is not permitted to be impleaded and 
in the event an order of eviction is passed ultimately 
against the tenant/respondent, the tenants will be evicted 
by the natural heirs and legal representatives of the 
deceased plaintiff who thereby shall take possession of 
H 
• • 
' . 
• • 
' ' 
... 
SURESH KUMAR BANSAL v. KRISHNA BANSAL 
421 
AND ANR. 
~ 
the suit premises, but if ultimately the probate of the 
A 
alleged Will of the deceased plaintiff is granted by the 
competent court of law, the suit property would devolve 
on the appellant but not on the natural heirs and legal 
representative of the deceased. Therefore, in the event of 
grant of probate in favour of the appellant, he has to take 
B 
legal proceeding against the natural heirs and legal 
representatives of the deceased plaintiff for recovery of 
possession of the suit premises from them which would 
y 
involve not only huge expenses but also considerable 
time would be spent to get the suit premises recovered c 
from the natural heirs and legal representatives of the 
deceased plaintiff. [Para 9] [428-A-G] 
1.2. On the other hand, if the appellant is allowed to 
carry on the eviction petition along with the natural heirs D 
a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.