DAULAT RAM Vs. MAHABIR PARSHAD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit, by three Plaintiffs, Mahabir Parshad, Gunwanti Devi and Sarojni, to recover Rs. 61,750 as arrears of rent or compensation for use and occupation of the land in suit, Appellant Daulat Ram was a Defendant, and with him the other two Defendants were Jagi Ram and Duli Chand, who have been made Respondents by this Appellant in his appeal against the decree in the suit, which reads - -"It is ordered that the Defendants do pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 61,650 with costs with interest thereon at the rate of ... per cent per annum from ... to the date of realization of the said sum and do also pay Rs. 3,015 the costs of this suit." The Appellant has impleaded all the three Plaintiffs as Respondents.

(2.) It is admitted on both sides that of the Plaintiffs -Respondents Sarojni died sometimes in November, 1962. No application has been moved to implead her legal representatives in the appeal of Daulat Ram, Defendant. The appeal has apparently abated. No application for setting aside abatement has been made either within time.

(3.) The Plaintiffs in the plaint stated that the land of which arrears of rent or compensation for use and occupation was claimed against the Defendants -was the property of Mahabir Parshad, Plaintiff, who on June 6, 1952, transferred specific field numbers of it, some in the name of his mother Gunwanti Devi Plaintiff and others in the name of his wife Sarojni, Plaintiff. The rest of the land in suit remained in the ownership of Mahabir Parshad, Plaintiff. So each one of the three Plaintiffs was the owner of definite and specific field numbers of the land of which arrears of rent or compensation for use and occupation was claimed by them against the Defendants. So that it is possible to know the definite proportion of their shares in that land. The Plaintiffs claimed a decree in the amount sued for in favour of Mahabir Parshad, Plaintiff or in favour of all the Plaintiffs. Decree in their favour was passed in the form as narrated above. It is obviously a joint decree in favour of all the three Plaintiffs. Their shares are not specified in it. As has been pointed out, from the ratio of the shares of ownership of the Plaintiffs in the land, the ratio of their shares in the decretal amount in the decree can be ascertained.