Deepinder Kaur and others vs State of Haryana and others

J.V. Gupta, C.J.

This order will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 1574 of 1990 as the question involved is common in both cases.

Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar, decreeholder, died during the execution proceedings arising out of a reference under the Land Acquisition Act. An application was moved on behalf of Shri U.S. Dhaliwal in his capacity as Chief Executive, Maharawal Khewaji Trust, for and on behalf of all the trustees and executors of the trust, for being brought on the record as legal representatives of the decreeholder pursuant to registered will dated 1st June, 1982 alleged to have been executed by the decreeholder in favour of the trust. The said application was resisted on behalf of the State of Haryana, the judgmentdebtor. The learned Additional District Judge took the view that the said application could not be entertained and adjourned the proceedings sine die for enabling the trustees to move the appropriate forum for getting the necessary probate or succession certificate on the basis of the said Will.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the view taken by learned Additional District Judge was wrong and illegal. Since the decreeholder died during the execution proceedings, his legal representatives should have been brought on the record and if any body wanted to contest the Will, it was for him to approach the appropriate Court. In support of his contention, he referred to the authorities reported as Tarsem Dass v. Durga Dass and others, 1989(2) R.L.R. 265; Marakhal v. Eswari Ammal, 1990(1) Land L.R. 273 and M/s. Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam Chand Sahni, A.I.R. 1968 Punjab 108.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. It has been held by this Court in Tarsem''s case (supra) that it was not for the executing Court to reject the application. The matter should have been decided for the purposes of bringing on record the legal representatives of the decreased decreeholder. If anybody was aggrieved, then he was at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the executing Court is directed to decide the application of the legal representatives in accordance with law after allowing the parties to lead evidence, if any.