SHER SINGH Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This L.P. A. arises out of the judgment recorded by a single Judge of this Court in Execution Second Appeal No. 1 of 1973. Short facts of the case are that the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are respectively Paras Ram, Krishan Dayal and Dharmu and who are the sons of one Ram Ditta, had filed a suit for possession against appellant No. 2 Tulsi, respondent No. 4 Mst. Maro and respondent No. 5 Nanku the son of Lehnu, The dispute in that suit was as regards title to the property arising out of inheritance. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 succeeded in obtaining a decree for possession in their favour. This decree was subsequently sought to be executed, but at the time of the execution it was found that the present appellants, except Tulsi, and respondents Nos. 6 to 10, were also in possession of certain parcels of the land in dispute. The decree-holders, therefore, joined even these persons as judgment-debtors on the allegation that they were inducted in the land by the original judgment-debtors after the decree was passed. During the execution proceedings which proceeded, the appellants, and the respondents, who are said to have been inducted by the original judgment-debtors, took the plea that they were holding different parcels of the disputed land as tenants, and tenancy rights in their favour were created even before the decree was obtained by the present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) This contention of the objectors was rejected by the Executing Court, and thereafter, by the District Judge in appeal, as also by the learned single Judge of this High Court in second execution appeal. With a special leave by the learned single Judge, these appellants have now preferred this appeal.

(3.) During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant No. 1 has died on 31-101977 and the respondent No. 1 Paras Ram, who was one of the original joint decree-holders, has also died on 26th June, 1977. It is an admitted fact that neither the legal representatives of the respondent No. 1 Paras Ram, nor the legal representatives of the appellant No. 1 Sher Singh are brought on record. Therefore, the question is: What is the effect of non-bringing the legal representatives of Paras Ram on the record of this case.