ASHA DEVI Vs. RAMA NAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears on behalf of the appellants or the respondent when this appeal has been called out for hearing. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.1988 by Sub Judge-V, Monghyr in T.S. No. 124 of 1985 by which the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession has been dismissed. The plaintiffs have filed the T.S. No. 124 of 1985 for the aforesaid reliefs against the defendant no. 1 who has been impleaded as defendant 1st party. The defendant nos. 2 to 7 have been impleaded as defendant 2nd party. From the perusal of the plaint, it transpires that the plaintiffs have claimed their title over the suit lands as their ancestral property and have come out with the case that the defendant 2nd party (defendant nos. 2 to 7) have got no title and possession over the suit lands and the defendant 1st party has also not acquired valid title and possession of the suit lands by his purchase from the defendant 2nd party.

(2.) After the scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, the learned court below has come to the finding that the plaintiffs have not succeeded in establishing their title over the suit lands and it has been further found that the defendant 1st party has succeeded in proving his title over the suit property on the basis of his purchase from the rightful owners.

(3.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs and in the memo of appeal, the defendant no.1 and defendant nos. 2 to 7 have been impleaded as respondents. It appears, however, from the order dated 08.02.1996 that due to the failure of the appellants to take steps for fresh service of appeal notice on respondent nos. 2 to 7, the names of respondent nos. 2 to 7 had been deleted from the memo of appeal. It does not appear from the records that thereafter the appellants took any steps for recall of the said order although they have continued to pursue his appeal. Later on, by order dated 17.01.2013, the competency matter of this appeal in absence of respondent nos. 2 to 7 (defendant no. 2 to 7 in the suit) has been directed to be considered at the time of hearing of this appeal. From the facts appearing from the pleadings of the parties as well as from the impugned judgment, it is clear that there is direct conflict of title over the suit lands between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 2 to 7 as well as defendant no. 1 who has claimed the suit property through the defendant nos. 2 to 7 as their transferees. The learned court below in the impugned judgment has further also held that the plaintiffs have no title over the suit land and the defendant no. 1 has acquired valid title over the same through the sale deed from the defendant 2nd set who are the rightful owner of the suit property. In this view of the matter, the defendant nos. 2 to 7 are definitely necessary parties to this appeal which has become incompetent after the deletion of their names from the memo of appeal. As such, this appeal is dismissed as incompetent.