RAGHUNANDAN SINGH Vs. RAMBALAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of a house situate on survey plot Nos. 5034 and 5035, in village Berath. It is not necessary to give in detail the facts of this suit inasmuch as the point involved in this appeal is as to whether the appeal in the lower appellate Court had abated as a whole. The suit was dismissed on the 10th December, 1956, by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal on the 17th January, 1957. While that appeal was pending, Mahatam Singh, respondent No. 1 of that appeal, died on the 28th May, 1958. On the 14th February, 1959, the other respondents filed a petition pointing out that on account of the death of Mahatam Singh respondent No. 1, the entire appeal had abated, inasmuch as he left two heirs one of whom was a party to the appeal but the other one, namely, his daughter, Jhalku Kuer, was not a party to that appeal, and the appellants had not taken steps for bringing her on the record in place of her deceased father, Mahatam Singh. The plaintiff-appellants took up the position that Mahatam Singh had left no daughter and as such it was not necessary to make Jhalku Kuer party to that appeal. Evidence was gone into and on the 21st February, 1959, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 had left a daughter, Jbalku Kuer, who was not impleaded in the appeal after the death of Mahatam Singh. Later on, a question arose as to whether the appeal had abated only against Jhalku Kuer or against all the respondents and the learned Subordinate Judge held on the 27th February, 1959, that the entire appeal had abated, and in view of that finding, he dismissed the appeal as a whole. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal against the order dismissing the appeal.

(2.) There is no dispute about the fact that Mahatam Singh, respondent No. 1, died on the 28th May, 1958, and that he did leave behind him one son who was already a party to the appeal before the lower appellate Court, and a daughter Jhalku Kuer who was not impleaded in the lower appellate Court. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that it was not necessary to implead the said daughter after the death of her father inasmuch as, according to the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she had no interest in the house until the male heirs of Mahatam Singh chose to divide the respective shares owned by them. Section 23 runs as follows:

(3.) In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs. Mahapatra, J.