SHILA DEVI Vs. MUNNA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 25.9.2000 passed by Sub Judge v. Danapur in Title Suit No. 148 of 1992 whereby the petition dated 3.3.2000 filed by the petitioners for abatement of the suit with respect to defendant No. 6 (their father) has been rejected.

(2.) THE plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 had filed the said Title Suit with respect to various properties as described in Schedule-B. Out of which the petitioners herein are concerned only with plot No. 881 which they claim was purchased by ancestor of defendant-opposite parties second set by registered sale deed dated 26.5.1920 and with respect to which it has been prayed in the plaint to declare the same as forged and fabricated defendant Nos.6 and 7 appeared in the said suit filed by the plaintiff -opposite party and they have claimed in the written statement that their ancestor Raja Ram Rai had purchased Plot No. 881 measuring an area of 63 decimals by means of sale deed dated 26.6.1920, from Raghuni Raut ancestor of the plaintiff and came in possession over the same. Subsequently Raja Ram Rai died leaving behind one son. Basudeo Rai defendant No. 7 and his brother Kamal Rai died leaving behind a son Teja Rai (defendant No. 6) whereas another brother Sugar Rai died leaving behind his daughter. It is stated that by a partition half portion of the land was allotted to Teja Rai defendant No. 6 and the other half portion of the land was allotted to defendant No. 7. Basudeo Rai, who came in possession over the same. During the pendency of the suit defendant No. 6. Teja Rai. died on 30.7.1995 leaving behind two daughters, namely Smt. Shila Devi and Smt. Chandrawati Devi. i.e. the two petitioners. It is stated that these petitioners had filed information in the court regarding the death of defendant No. 6 on 19.8.1995 itself and thereafter further petitions were filed for passing an appropriate order and ultimately they filed an application on 3.3.2000 to dismiss the suit as abated.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand, submitted that the alleged sale deed dated 22.5.1920 was admittedly executed only in favour of Raja Ram Rai whose sole heir is defendant No. 7, Basudeo Rai, who is already on the record and, thus, in that view of the matter Teja Rai, defendant No. 6 was not a necessary party to the suit and there was no necessity of substitution of his heirs and legal representatives on his death.