RANJIT SINGH Vs. JITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed againt the judgment of the learned single Judge learned in an execution second appeal, the sole issue is the challenge raised to the correctness of the view expressed in the Division Bench Judgment in Tota Ram v. Kundan AIR 1928 Lah 784 and followed in Ram Briahan v, Kartar Singh, AIR 1969 Punj 214. It is, therefore, unnecessary to notice the facts and it suffices to mention that the sole point herein is whether a decree passed in favour of one of the plaintiffs who had died before the passing thereof (her legal representatives having not been brought' on the record) is a total nullity and, therefore, inexecutable. The learned single Judge following the aforesaid two judgments has held to the contrary and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) Mr. J. R. Mittal has assiduously sought to assail the correctness of the view in the Ram's case and subsequently followed in Ram Krishan's case, Counsel has been unable to cite any judgment of this Court to the contrary and indeed a Division Bench judgment to which I was a party) in Baldev Singh v. Hira, (1972) 74 Punj LR 422, was also brought to our notice which has held as follows:--

(3.) The ratio of the decision above-said wan accepted and followed by Chief Justice Shadi Lal whilst speaking for the Bench in Tota Ram v. Kundan, AIR 1928 Lah 784, where he laid down as follows:--