RAM SARUP Vs. CHANDRA BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff being aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court so confirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Rohtak whereby his suit was held to have abated inasmuch as the legal representatives of defendant No. 7 i.e. Smt. Chandni had not been brought on record within stipulated time, has filed this appeal. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may first be enumerated.

(2.) Plaintiff-appellant is the sister's son of Nand Lal, the original owner of the property in dispute. He filed a suit against defendants No. 1 to 6 by basically contending that under law of Succession, he alongwith his sister Smt. Chandni was entitled to the estate of Nand Lal and respondents No. 1 to 6 have only set up a Will, with a view to defeat the right of the plaintiff and that the said Will is a forged and fictitious document. Admittedly, Suit. Chandni died on January 29, 1971 and respondents No. 1 to 6 filed an application on October 27,1973 in the trial Court where the prayer was to dismiss the suit as having abated for non-impleading of the legal representatives of Smt. Chandni. The plea of aforesaid respondents prevailed with the Courts below and the suit was held to have abated in total. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the order aforesaid but he was unsuccessful in appeal as well.

(3.) Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant forcefully contended that the Learned Courts below have not at all applied their mind to the facts of the case and inasmuch as Chandni was not a necessary party to the litigation nor any relief was claimed against her, her death could not entail dismissal of suit as having abated.