CHAUDHRY RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the legal representatives of Jhanda Ram. One of the lands of him and others situated in Village Hijranwan Khud in the State of haryana was notified for acquisition under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition act (I of 1894 for short the Act on 16/05/1957. The Land Acquisition collector in his award dated 21/09/1958 awarded to Tal lands rs 300 per acre. Dissatisfied therewith they sought reference under Section 18. The District Judge by his judgment dated 13/01/1960 enhanced the market value to Tal lands Rs. 500. 00 per acre. Against the enhanced market value, the state filed the appeal and the claimants filed cross-objections to increase the compensation to Rs. 800. 00 per acre. In this case, R. F. A. 170 of 1960 was filed by the State. Therein Jhanda Ram and his two sons and a daughter filed cross- objections. Dismissing the State appeals and allowing the cross-objections, of other appeals, by its judgment dated March 29, 1973, the High Court dismissed this appeal on the sole ground that two legal representatives of Jhanda Ram were not brought on record and that, therefore, the appeal and the cross- objection stood abated. Against the judgment of the High court, an appeal was filed with special leave granted by this court.

(2.) Shri S. K. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the high court committed grievous error of law in dismissing the appeal and the cross-objection having been abated on the ground that all the legal representatives were not brought on record. Two sons and a daughter were already on record. On account of the death of Jhanda Ram, the appeal and the cross-objection had not abated. Be as it may it was also contended that the memo was filed in the High court itself to record them as legal representatives of their father Jhanda Ram and the High court had not taken that into account on the ground that it was barred by limitation. It is resisted by the learned counsel for the State that Jhanda Ram has a specific share in the property and having died intestate the legal representatives should be brought on record within the period of limitation prescribed in that behalf. Since the legal representatives were not brought on record, as rightly found by the High court, the appeal and the cross-objection stood abated and the dismissal of the appeal and the cross-objection were valid in law.

(3.) Rules 3 and 4 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the procedure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs or the defendants, the mutatis mutandis appellants and the respondents on record. Rule 4 provides that where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representatives of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.