Summary
A daughter claiming succession to property allotted to her parents under an earlier family partition was a necessary and proper party to a later suit among the sons. Failure to challenge the 1966 partition decree did not defeat her separate inheritance claim arising upon her parents’ deaths. The sons’ reliance on unproved wills strengthened the need for her participation rather than excluding it, since proof of those wills could prejudice her ordinary succession rights.
Issues
- Whether the earlier partition decree barred the daughter’s later inheritance claim.
- Whether alleged wills exclusively benefiting sons justified refusing impleadment.
- Whether the daughter’s representatives should be added to the subsequent suit.
Held
- The 1966 partition allocated property among the parents and sons under the principles prevailing at that time. Absence of a challenge to that decree was irrelevant to the distinct claim of succeeding to the parents’ allotted shares after their deaths. (¶ 10–11)
- If the parents died intestate, the daughter could claim a share in their estates. The earlier partition did not disentitle her from doing so, making her a necessary and proper party to the later proceedings. (¶ 11)
- The asserted wills had not yet been proved. Because proof could redirect succession to her prejudice, their assertion did not remove the need to implead her and permit participation in the adjudication. (¶ 12–13)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. Orders refusing impleadment set aside and Order I Rule 10 application allowed; daughter’s substituted legal representatives entitled to participate. Validity of the propounded wills and ultimate succession left for adjudication.