BABU RAM Vs. MAHESH MISRA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ram Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 and Sri A.K. Sachan, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 to 5. No one appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 10 herein.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that one Sri Shiv Charan Lal, father of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein, had filed O.S. No. 129 of 1987 (Shiv Charan Lal v. Babu Ram and others) impleading Sri Babu Ram (petitioner herein), Nathoo Lal S/o. Nand Ram, Janki Prasad S/o. Loki, Chandan S/o. Khyoraj, Chhangey S/o. Lala Ram and Smt. Nathho widow of Reet Ram as defendant Nos. 1 to 6, claiming relief that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants whereby sale deed dated 3.12.1986 executed by the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 in favour of the defendant No. 1 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pilibhit at Bahi No. 1 Jild No. 1283 at page 348/349 at Serial No. 4275 on 4.12.1986, be declared void and cancelled. In the aforesaid suit, the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had put in their appearance through Counsel. Several dates including 26.8.1987, 10.9.1987, 7.10.1987, 29.8.1987 and 11.1.1988 etc. were fixed for filing written statement and for framing of issues but the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have not filed written statement, although they had filed an objection to the stay application. Subsequently, none appeared on behalf of the aforesaid defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The written statement was filed by the defendant No. 1/petitioner herein on 3.2.1998. In para-17 of his written statement, the defendant No. 1 stated that the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely Sri Nathoo Lal, Janki Prasad and Chandan died during pendency of the suit before 7 years, 6 years and 2 years respectively.

(3.) The plaintiff was an illiterate old villager residing in an interior area. After getting the knowledge about the death of the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, he contacted his Counsel who advised him to enquire about the heirs and legal representatives of the aforesaid deceased-defendants. The main contesting defendant in the above suit is the defendant No. 1/petitioner herein who has been contesting the suit. Affidavits being Paper No. C28, C27 and C26 were filed by the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who had stated that the disputed property has been transferred by them to the defendant No. 1 by way of aforesaid registered sale-deed dated 3.12.1986.