whether the suit filed by the
father of the appellants in respect of property owned by appellants Nos.1
and 2 could be held to be not maintainable even when the appellants were
added as plaintiffs as heirs of their father who died during pendency of
the suit and
whether description of the appellants who are owners as heirs
instead of owners in their own right will be a case of mere “error, defect or irregularity” not affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the Court which did not affect the maintainability
of the suit. =
Thus on admitted
facts, only defect pointed out is of formal nature in description without,
in any manner, affecting the merits or the jurisdiction of the Court. Such
irregularity could have been corrected by the Court under Order 1 Rule 10
and can be corrected even at this stage unless the defendant is in any
manner prejudiced. No principle or authority has been brought to our
notice which could affect the maintainability of the suit merely on account
of wrong description which did not in any manner cause prejudice to the
defendant, particularly when no such objection is shown to have been raised
before the trial Court. 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS
Rajkumar is the owner. Rajkumar bequeathed property to the sons of his brother by name Shiva Kumar Dubey. after the death of Rajkumar , his brother filed suit for eviction against the tenant. Pending suit plaintiff died.
His sons and widow were brought on record as legal heirs of plaintiff.
The sons of plaintiff having a WILL in their favour not added as owners of the property nor they have filed suit for eviction.
The very eviction suit was filed by plaintiff – as legal heir of his brother Rajkumar.
The decree passed infavour of the plaintiff as legal heirs but not as owners – is a mere error or curable ?