Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Mr. Gaurav Sarin, learned counsel for Defendant No. 1, pointed out that the decision in Kusum Kumria v. S.P. Kumria clearly holds that the right under Section 22 HSA was confined to Class I heirs. Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 were not Class I heirs of late Shri Seth Narain Srichawla. Shri Ongkar Singh was not a pre-deceased son, but a deceased son of late Shri Seth Narain Srichawla. The son of a deceased son was not a Class I heir. He further submitted that as far as Plaintiff No. 1 is concerned, she sold all her rights in the suit property to Defendant No. 2 during the pendency of the suit. Thirdly, Mr. Sarin pointed out that Plaintiff No.1 had earlier filed CS (OS) No. 405 of 2009 seeking identical reliefs as in these suits. Mr. Sarin produced a copy of orders dated 8th April 2009 and 13th May 2009 passed in the said suit which showed that the Plaintiff had abandoned her claim both for permanent and mandatory injunction when it was realised that she had not paid the requisite court fee as the suit had been grossly undervalued. Lastly, it is submitted that the present suits were an abuse of the process of law. The suit themselves could not have been filed by Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 by themselves, as it was Plaintiff No.1 who was the Class 1 heir. She sold away her right to Defendant No.2 during the pendency of the suit. As regards Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, they were parties to the earlier partition suit CS (OS) 1196 of 1988 in which the order dated 25th April 2008 was passed in their presence recording the fact that the shares of those Plaintiffs were sold to Shri Parshotam Chawla.