ISRAIL Vs. FEROZE KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that the appeal has abated because of the failure of the appellants to bring on record the legal representatives of Baland Khan Respondent 2 and Mst. Shakuri Respondent 8, who died as far back as 4 years and 1 year, respectively. The factum of the death and the dates of death of these two respondents are not disputed. The appellants' learned counsel, however, maintains that the appeal does not abate and can proceed in absence of the legal representatives of the two deceased respondents.

(2.) The decree under appeal, which is an appellate decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, dated the 19th of June, 1961, declares that the sale of the land in suit of which the last maleholder was Gul Khan, effected by his widow Mst. Shakuri by means of the registered sale-deed dated the 24th of June, 1959, shall not bind the rights of the reversioners Israil and Inam-ud-Din, the appellants before me after her death and it will be ineffective and void qua the rights of the reversioners. Out of the two respondents, who died during the pendency of the appeal and whose legal representatives have not been brought on record, Mst. Shakuri is the person whose power to alienate the property in dispute has been challenged, while Baland Khan is one of the reversioners. To decide the question whether the death of these two respondents results in abatement of the appeal, we have to see if the suit could proceed in their absence. So far as the reversioners are concerned, it can not be disputed that all the reversioners are not necessary parties and one reversioner can sue to challenge the alienation. Accordingly, the death of one of the several plaintiff-reversioners does not result in abatement of the suit or appeal.

(3.) Apart from this, it must be remembered that a decree obtained by a reversioner enures for the benefit of all reversioners and the reversioners who are entitled to inherit the property of the limited owner or the widow when the succession opens, can claim the property on the basis of declaration already secured by one of the reversioners. In this case, by the decree under appeal the suit of Baland Khan and several other reversioners has been decreed. The death of Baland Khan in no way prejudices the rights of the other reversioners to claim the benefit of the decree that has already been passed. In fact, even those reversioners who were not parties to the suit can take benefit of the decree under appeal if at the time of the death of Smt. Shakuri they were entitled to inherit the property that had come into her hands from the last male-holder. In these circumstances, the death of Baland Khan would not result in the abatement of the suit.