SHRIMATI GURO Vs. RAJ KAUSHALYA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ramji Lal who died, as per the finding of the lower Courts, on September 2, 1954, was an allottee of 73 kanals 18 marlas of land in Village Aliwal, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. He had three sons, namely, Pishori Lal, Hans Raj and Bishamber Dass, and a daughter Smt. Guro, now appellant, Pishori Lal died in the year 1947 and left behind Smt. Raj Kaushalya his widow who is plaintiff-respondent No. 1 as his sole heir. Bishambar Dass died somewhere in the year 1964-65. The present dispute between the parties relates to his succession.

(2.) Smt. Raj Kaushalya widow of Pishori Lal brought a suit for declaration claiming ownership of the entire land allotted to Ramji Lal and in the alternative for possession of the same in case she was not found to be in its possession. This suit of hers was decreed by the trial court to the extent of one-half holding her to be the owner of one-half of the property left by Ramji Lal and with regard to the rest of the claim it was dismissed. Against this decree she preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in toto. Smt. Guro daughter of Ramji lal has now preferred this appeal impleading Smt. Raj Kaushalya widow of Pishore Lal as respondent No. 1 and Hans Raj son of Ramji Lal as respondent No. 2.

(3.) As both the respondents in this appeal failed to engage any lawyer to pursue and argue this case on their behalf, two actual date registered notices (A.D.) were sent to them, Regarding respondent No. 2 the report of the postal authorities is that he died some time back but the date of his death is not mentioned. Regarding the other respondent, that is, Smt. Raj Kaushalya, the notice has been received back in all probability, for the reason that she is not residing on the given address mentioned therein. This is so clear from the fact that when this registered notice (A.D.) reached at the address mentioned by the office somebody re-directed the notice to a different address of Shahadra but she was not found there too and the notice has been returned by the postal authorities. It is not in dispute before me that in view of the newly added rule by this Court, that is, Rule 2-A and sub-rules (4), (5) and (6) to Rule 4 of Order 22, Civil Procedure Code, it is the duty of the legal representatives of the deceased-respondent to make a prayer for being brought on record and in the absence of the same the appeal does not abate. As far as Smt. Raj Kaushalya-respondent is concerned the actual date notice was sent to her on the address supplied by her but it has remained unserved for the reason that she failed to supply her correct or changed address. Under Order 6, Rule 14-A, Civil Procedure Code, undisputably it is the duty of the litigant to give and file his correct address along with the pleadings. Under the circumstances, detailed above, I have proceeded to decide this appeal ex parte.