SHIV RAM Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which at present is required to be decided by us is whether both these appeals have abated on account of the facts, that Shiv Ram, the appellant No. 1 in both the appeals and Zalam Singh, appellant No. 6 in Appeal No. 36 of 1967 and respondent No. 8 in Appeal No. 4 of 1968 have died respectively on 4 -6 -1976 and 2 -5 -1970 and their legal representatives have not been brought on record within time. Respondent Bhagat Ram in both these appeals has, moved the court to pass an order that both the appeals have abated. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the deceased, Shiv Ram and Zalam Singh, have applied for their substitution in place of the deceased. Chamku, the widow of deceased Shiv Ram, has stated that she is illiterate and, therefore, did not know what would be the effect of her not being substituted as legal representative of her deceased husband Shiv Ram. The widow of Zalam Singh has applied for condonation of delay for being substituted as the legal representative of Zalam Singh on the ground that she was suffering from gout. Both these legal representatives have also applied for condonation of delay. These applications are registered as C.M.P. No. 1093 of 1977 and C.M.P. No. 1094 of 1977.

(2.) SHORT facts forming the background of both these appeals would be necessary before we proceed to consider the question whether these appeals have abated on account of non -substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased within time.

(3.) SINCE the heirs of the remaining three branches of the other three sons of Pati Ram did not recognise these transactions by Panchmu in favour of Bhagat Ram and Rajinder Kumar, Bhagat Ram filed a suit for declaration against these heirs to the effect that he has become the owner of 1/4th share ia the property left by Negi Ram. This suit was registered in the lower court as Civil Suit No. 59 of 1964. The learned trial Judge decreed that suit in favour of Bhagat Ram and, therefore, Shiv Ram and some of the other heirs of the remaining three branches have preferred Appeal No. 36 of 1967 on 16 -9 -1967.