MULTANI RAM Vs. CHUHARA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge, dated 4th of October, 1968 whereby it was held that Regular Second Appeal 528 of 1961 had abated in toto because of the death of Godha Ram (one of the appellants before the learned Single Judge) his legal representatives having not been brought on record within the time allowed by law.

(2.) SO far as the deceased Godha Ram is concerned, there is no dispute that the appeal had abated. The sole contention raised by Mr. K. R. Mahajan, who appears for the appellants, is that the appeal had not abated in toto but only with regard to the interest or share of the deceased Godha Ram in the property in dispute. The question whether there has been total or partial abatement would depend on the facts of such case. Thus for the decision of this case it is necessary to set out in some detail how this matter has arisen.

(3.) THE dispute between the parties relates to the succession to the property left by smt. Asi Bai who died issueless in November, 1957. Mutation of the land was entered in the name of Chuhara Ram (respondent) on the basis of the will alleged to have been executed by Smt. Asi Bai. Thereupon, Godha Ram, one of the near collaterals of Smt. Asi Bai's father Jhangi Ram brought the suit for possession, claiming that the land in dispute was allotted to Smt. Asi Bai lieu of the landed property that she had inherited in Pakistan from her father. The present appellants (Multani Ram, Hari Chand, Chanan Dass, Arjan Dass and Dayal Dass) along with dula Ram respondent, being the other near collaterals of Smt. Asi Bai's father were impleaded as respondents (defendants? ). They, however, chose not to contest the suit. Chuhara Ram respondent alone contested the suit on the ground that he was lawfully in possession of the property in pursuance of the will executed by Smt. Asi Bai in his favour. The trial proceeded on the following issues:--