SURINDER KUMAR Vs. HUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit was filed by Devi Dayal (whohas since been substituted by his legal representatives) for the recoveryof Rs.2,50,000.00. It was alleged in the suit that one Ch. Ram NarainBishnoi took from the plaintiff diff^rei-ltloiii totalling Rs. 1,43,033-/and executed pronotes in favour of the plaintiff on the said dates. Itwas also stated in para 4 of ths plaint that about a year back Ch. RamNarain died and the defendants are his sons and legal reprasentativesof his estate and are bound to pay the just debts of their father. decree for Rs. 2,59,033.00 comprising of Rs. 1,43,033.00 as prlniipal andRs. 1,07,000.00 as interest was therefore prayed. Suit was filed on18-1-1965. In the suit when the evidence was being taken on commission on 6-2-1971 the advocate for the defendants mids a statement thatBanwari Lal, defendant No. 2 had died by failure of heart on 31-1-71.On this the advocate for the plaintiff stated that the case could notproceed in the absence of the debased dsfendaiit and the case was,therefore, adjourned for further proceedings. On this the Commissioner adjourned the matter and returned the proceedings to the court forfurther necessary action.

(2.) IA 493/72 dated 20-3-1972 has been filed in which it is stated thatas three defendants had been sued jointly as representing the estate oftheir father, Ch. Ram Narain, and the plaintiffi hiving taken no stepsto bring the legal representative of deceased, defendant No. 2 on record the suit of the plaintiffs has abated altogether as the right to suedid not survive against the other two defendants as their liability ifany was joint and indivisible.

(3.) A reply has been filed on behalf of Plaintiffs. The factum of deathof defendant No. 2 is not denied. The liability of the sons is statedto be not personal and is only confined to the share of eaoh son enjoyedby him of the ancestral property. The liability is, therefore, stated tobejoint and several and the right to sue survives against the other twodefendants. It is denied, therefore, that there is any abatement.