RUKMINI JAISWAL Vs. BALHANS JAYASWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order refusing to set aside the abatement and substitute the appellant in place of her deceased husband who had filed a suit which has since been dismissed for non prosecution. Case of appellant is that after coming to know from tenant of the disputed house that there was a litigation in respect of the house initiated by her husband she filed the petition to continue the suit which had been dismissed for abatement. Her case is that her relationship with her husband was strained and she was residing at Allahabad. Coming to know about the illness of her husband she Came to Dehradun where shortly after her husband expired. She is illiterate and aged 82 years and had no knowledge about the litigation. Accordingly she should get chance to continue the suit.

(2.) Defendant No.2 who is son-in-law of appellant filed an affidavit purporting to be an objection to the application of appellant. Defendant No. 4 also filed an objection contesting the application. Thus in support of the application affidavit of the appellant was available. Considering these materials Trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had knowledge about the litigation earlier and accordingly did not permit her to continue the suit by setting aside the abatement and allowing the application for substitution. This is the grievance of the appellant.

(3.) The suit relates to a house at Dehradun. Case of original plaintiff is that that the said house was purchased in the name of his minor son investing all his savings. His son attaining majority has executed a power of attorney in favour of husband of Defendant No. 4 and taking advantage of the power of attorney the property has been transferred in the name of Defendant No. 4 and as such the transfer is not valid.