KUMTUM JAGMOHAN Vs. RAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in these petitions is whether sub -rule (4) of R. 4 of Order 22, C.P.C. could be invoked in this case. The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a suit for a declaration that he is the adopted son of one K. Ramayya and for possession of the properties in dispute to which he impleaded defendants 5 to 11 the alienees of the properties from the widow of Ramayya. All these defendants filed written statements and took part in the first hearing of the suit, namely, settlement of issues. It appears that subsequently, the 14th defendant died. This does not seem to have been noticed by the plaintiff. Further hearing of the suit went on subsequently and it was dismissed against defendants 5 to 14. It is against this judgment that the plaintiff seeks to file an appeal in forma pauperis. Pending the application, the appellant wants to bring on record the legal representatives of the 14th defendant on record.

(2.) IT is argued by Sri Tatachari, learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant can maintain this application notwithstanding the fact that the 14th defendant died before judgment was delivered by reason of sub -rule (4) which says: