Remanded

Tej Singh Son of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal v. Addl. District Judge No. 3

Rajasthan HC18 May 2023CW/4288/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court set aside an impugned order determining legal representatives of a deceased. The Court directed the trial court to carry out proceedings de novo, specifically addressing the execution of the will and application of legal representatives under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, due to contradictory lower court findings.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 07.11.2012 set aside; writ petition disposed of; proceedings directed to be carried out de novo by the lower court.

Tej Singh Son of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Vs… — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/011265]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4288/2013

¶4

Tej Singh son of late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, resident of 91-A, Tagore Nagar Extension, Hirapura, 200 feet Bypass, Jaipur

¶5

Amar Singh son of late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, resident Of 9, Padam Vihar, Near Vishnu Marriage Garden, Rajat Path, Bus Stand, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

¶9

Ballabh Chand Son Of Shri Mohri Lal Kumawat, Resident Of 3439, Kalyanji Ka Rasta, Jaipur. (Died During The Pendency Of The Writ Petition).

¶10

2/1) Billo Devi W/o Late Ballabh Chand, (Died During The Pendency Of The Writ Petition)

¶11

2/2) Mohan Lal S/o Late Ballabh Chand

¶12

2/3) Kamlesh D/o Late Ballabh Chand

¶13

2/4) Raju D/o Late Ballabh Chand

¶14

2/5) Saroj D/o Late Ballabh Chand

¶15

All are resident of Saroj D/o Late Ballabh Chand

¶16

Lalit Kumar Verma son of Late Shri Ballabh Chand, resident Of 3439, Kalyanji Ka Rasta, Jaipur.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vashistha Tapsavi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order

¶20

18/05/2023

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Suit No.208/1982.

¶22

In the present matter, while determining the issue of legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Lichhma Devi, the learned

[2023/RJJP/011265]

[CW-4288/2013]

(2 of 3)

court below passed an order to the effect that the respondent no.3 was adjudged to be the owner of certain properties in view of a registered will left by the deceased. In this background, the present writ petition was filed.

¶27

In the said writ petition, vide order dated 29.11.2013, this Court dismissed the writ application preferred by the petitioners. Thereafter, against the said dismissal, a review petition was filed by the petitioners bearing No. 84/2014 and the same was allowed on 22.05.2015.

¶28

After hearing both the sides at length and upon a consideration of the fact that contradictory findings were enunciated in orders dated 29.11.2013 and 22.05.2015 and that no due compliance of the order dated 22.05.2015 was carried out in effect, wherein the court below was to determine the validity of the will in light of the objections filed by the petitioners qua its execution as per the mandate of Order 22 Rule 5 of C.P.C., this Court deems it just and proper to set-aside the order dated 07.11.2012 and direct the learned Court below to carry out the proceedings denovo, especially qua the issue of the determination of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 for determining the legal representatives of the deceased.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner will be at liberty to file an appropriate application before the court below, incorporating the necessary arguments/submissions for the swift adjudication of the matter. The same shall be filed before the learned trial court within a period of two weeks.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents will also be at liberty to oppose the same, by way of an appropriate application/response.

[2023/RJJP/011265]

[CW-4288/2013]

(3 of 3)

Furthermore, the learned trial court is expected to dispose of the matter expeditiously, in due accordance with law.

¶35

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, is disposed of.

¶36

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶37

Upendra Pratap Singh /49

Tej Singh Son of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal v. Addl. District Judge No. 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Singh Son of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal v. Addl. District Judge No. 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharpai Devi Vs Badami Devi and Ors.

Bharpai Devi Vs Badami Devi and Ors.

Chhoti Bai and Anr. Vs Govt of Raj and Ors.

Navin Chand Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Chhabra Vs the Estate Officer Wakf Board

Pati Ram and Ors. Vs Civil Judge J D and Ors.