JASWANT KAUR Vs. RAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the death of Attar Singh, his widow Ishar Kaur inherited his half share in 746 bighas and 16 biswas of land. She herself died on March 24, 1957. On her death Jaswant Singh, defendant No. 1 in the suit, a collateral of Attar Singh, had that half share mutated in his own name.

(2.) The three plaintiffs, Ravinder Singh and his two brothers, all minors, are the sons of Jaswant Singh defendant No. 1. With all this they the minors, purchased one-half of the land left by Attar Singh from his daughter Jaswant Kaur, wife of Harchand Singh. The purchase was on January 30, 1958, for Rs. 20,000/-, and it is said that it was under a registered sale-deed. The reason why only one-half of the inheritance of Attar Singh was purchased was that the other half may go to his second daughter Basant Kaur, who is the wife of Shamsher Singh. Jaswant Kaur vendor and Basant Kaur are sisters and were impleaded in the suit by the plaintiffs as defendants 2 and 3, defendant 1 being their father Jaswant Singh.

(3.) On the basis of the sale-deed of January 30, 1958 by Jaswant Kaur defendant 2, the plaintiffs sought declaration that they are the owners of one-half of the land left by Attar Singh's widow Ishar Kaur. It is clearly stated in the judgment of the District Judge given on December 1, 1962, that by an order of February 11, 1961, the trial Court summoned the defendants to appear for March 9, 1961. That I assume was the first date of hearing of the suit. On this date the father of the plaintiffs, i.e., Jaswant Singh defendant No. 1, appeared, but defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the two sisters, were not served and summonses did not return to the trial Court. The case was adjourned to April 3, 1961, when again the summonses, after effecting service on defendant Nos. 2 and 3, did not return to the trial Court. On that date the trial Court proceeded to pass an order that summonses be issued to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on furnishing process fee, addresses and registered letters-acknowledgment due for April 26, 1961. In other words the trial Court then proceed under Rule 20A(1) of Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under that rule the Court has been given power, in case the summons is returned unserved, either in lieu of, or in addition to, the manner provided for service of summons in the earlier rules, to direct the summons to be served by registered post addressed to the defendant or his agent empowered to accept service at the place where the defendant or his agent ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. It is obvious that the Court can only have recourse to this rule when "the summons is returned unserved." In the present case the summonses were never returned unserved to the Court either for March 9 or April 3, 1961. The Court, therefore, could not proceed under this rule.