CHUHATALI Vs. BRATU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bratu applied to the Compensation Officer under section 11 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, for the acquisition of the right, title and interest of the landowner Bhekhu in the land of the tenancy held by him under the landowner. Tek Chand, the son of the landowner, filed an application stating that the landowner was of unsound mind and incapable of understanding the import of the proceeding and, therefore, a guardian should be appointed for the purposes of the proceeding. The Compensation Officer held that the landowner was not insane, and he made an order granting proprietary rights in favour of Bratu. On appeal, the learned District Judge found that the landowner was in fact insane and that the circumstances called for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. He set aside the order of the Compensation Officer and remanded the case. The Compensation Officer now appointed Tek Chand as the guardian ad litem of the landowner. Tek Chand filed an objection pleading that the landowner was insane and incapable of earning his livelihood and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of section 11 (2) of the Act. If the benefit of section 11 (2) was given, the right, title and interest of such landowner was excluded from the operation of section 11 (1). The Compensation Officer found that the landowner was entitled to the benefit claimed and, therefore, dismissed the tenants application by bis order dated November 30, 1970. The tenant appealed, and the learned District Judge has held while allowing the appeal that the landowner had sufficient land, other than the parcel of land in question, which could serve as a means of livelihood. By his order dated June 31, 1971, the learned District Judge allowed the tenants application and granted him proprietary rights in the land claimed by him. Bhekhu, the landowner, then filed the present second appeal.

(2.) On May 13, 1972, during the pendency of this appeal, Bhekhu died and on application made by his legal representatives have been substituted in his place. The legal representatives, who are his heirs, include his widow and widow of his pre -deceased son.

(3.) The appellants contend that the findings of the learned District Judge in relation to Bhekhu are no longer relevant and what the Court is concerned with now will be whether the heirs belong to the categories of persons mentioned in section 11 (2) and their circumstances bring them within the terms of that provision. It is said that if the present appellants are found to be entitled personally to the benefit of section 11 (2) of the Act the respondent tenants application for the acquisition of proprietary rights must fail. It is pointed out that the appellants appear on the record as Bhekhus heirs. Reliance is placed on Dareppal Alagouda v. Malloppa Shivalingappa, AIR 1947 Bom. 307, where a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has ovserved that if a legal representative wants to raise any new point which the deceased party could not have raised he can do so on getting himself impleaded in his personal capacity. Reference has also been made to Yeshwantrao Sabnis v Bhalchandrarao, AIR 1952 MB 207,