SHAILNDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS versus MAYA PRAKASH JAIN AND OTHERS

SHAILNDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS versus MAYA PRAKASH JAIN AND OTHERS

The applicant Srikanta Jain was a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in Suit No.464 of 2006 because the partition decree of 1966 did not extinguish her potential rights as a Class I heir upon the death of her parents; since the respondents have propounded Wills whose due execution is yet to be proved, the daughters could be prejudiced if not impleaded; accordingly the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC should have been allowed and the orders rejecting impleadment were set aside.

Parties
Appellants: Shailndra Kumar Jain and Others; Respondents: Maya Prakash Jain and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Civil Revision No.156 of 2016
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Impleadment, Partition, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Wills
Civil Procedure Succession Hindu Law Family Law Property Law Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Impleadment Partition +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shailndra Kumar Jain and Others

Appellants

Maya Prakash Jain and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Civil Revision No.156 of 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Srikanta Jain (and her heirs) was a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in Suit No.464 of 2006 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
  2. 2 Whether the decree/compromise in the 1966 partition suit disentitles daughters to claim share in parents' properties after the parents' death
  3. 3 Whether alleged Wills, if proved, would alter normal succession and affect the rights of Class I heirs

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant Srikanta Jain was a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in Suit No.464 of 2006 because the partition decree of 1966 did not extinguish her potential rights as a Class I heir upon the death of her parents; since the respondents have propounded Wills whose due execution is yet to be proved, the daughters could be prejudiced if not impleaded; accordingly the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC should have been allowed and the orders rejecting impleadment were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Set aside the orders of the High Court dated 19.07.2018 and the trial court dated 10.03.2016 rejecting impleadment
  • Allow application Ext.92 Ka filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by Srikanta Jain in Suit No.464 of 2006 and direct her impleadment as a defendant