SMT NIKKO @ SARASWATI DEVI Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LABHU Ram son of Gurditta owned 229 kanals 9 Marlas of land comprised in Had Bast No. 194 of village Lamin Tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur. Ram Das and Dharam Pal both sons of Labhuy Ram took possession of this land on the basis of Will allegedly executed by Labhu Ram deceased in their favour. Smt. Nikko describing herself to be the daughter of the deceased filed civil suit No. 169 on August 10, 1983 before the learned trial Court for obtaining possession of 57 Kanals 7 Marlas and 2 Sarsahis out of this land, as her 1/4th share therein Smt. Shastri Devi defendant respondent No. 2 was alleged therein to be the owner of the remaining 1/4h share besides 1/4h share each of her two brothers aforesaid. Negativing her claim, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff appellant on September 18, 1985. Learned court of first appeal vide its judgment dated October 23, 1986 dismissed the appeal on the short ground of its being still-born; on account of having been filed in the name of Ram Das deceased who was alleged to have died during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court. Decision rendered by the learned court of first appeal on October 23, 1986 has been challenged in this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 695 of 1987.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-appellant referred me to the observations made in Tintath Singh v. Shri Bal Kishan and others, AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 373 which read :-

(3.) ON behalf of defendant-respondents their learned counsel referred me to the observations made in Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna v. Protab Chandra Ghose and others, A.I.R. 1946 Federal Court 13, Hindustan General Insurance Society Ltd. v. Kedarnarayan, A.I.R. 1956 Madhya Bharat 76, Sachindra Chandra Chakravarti v. Jnanenora Narayan Singh Roy and another, A.I.R. 1963 Calcutta 417, C. Muttu v. Bharath Match Works, Sivakasi, A.I.R. 1964 Mysore 293, State of West Bengal v. Manisha Maity and others, A.I.R. 1965 Calcutta 459, Mst. Dhani vs. Shri Gian Chand and others, 1973 Punjab Law Journal 451, Municipality Faridkot through its Administrator v. M/s Chander Bhan and others, (1982) I Supreme Court Cases 479 and Ramji Lal and others v. Hira and others, 1983 Punjab Law Reporter 231 and urged that Ram Das defendant having died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives having not been brought on record within the prescribed period, learned court of first appeal was wholly justified in holding that the appeal against a dead person was still-born and had, therefore, rightly dismissed it as incompetent. None of the rulings cited is relevant on the point in issue. The argument based thereon is, therefore, of no avail to the respondents.