BALWANT KUMAR Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit pending between the parties, an application was made by the plaintiff on 12-4-1989 in which it had been asserted that defendant Sansar Chand has died on 3/4th Feb., 1989 at Jammu. Four persons were shown to be his legal heirs and it was prayed before the Court below that they be brought on record as the defendants. Objections were filed to this application by the four persons who had been shown as legal heirs by the plaintiff. In their objections, they contended that the persons to be brought on record were legal heirs but in addition the deceased had a daughter namely Sudershana Devi about whom no application has been made by the plaintiff, therefore, the suit should be treated to have abated. On 13-12-1990 another application came to be filed by the plaintiff whereby he said that Smt. Sudershana Devi be also brought on record as has been disclosed by other representatives that she was also a legal heir of the deceased defendant. This was objected to by the other legal heirs and an order came to be passed by the trial Court on 19-11-1992. The trial Court allowed the application and brought on record all the legal heirs including Sudershana Devi. This order has been challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) The only question to be considered by this Court is whether the suit abates as against Smt. Sudershana Devi, if this Court comes to the conclusion that suit against Smt. Sudershana Devi abates, than the contention of the plaintiff is that since the property is joint, suit should abate against everybody?

(3.) Once the defendant dies, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to move an application within the statutory period for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased defendant, if he moves an application well within time, the suit should not abate, but, however, there will be situation when the plaintiff is not in a position to give names of all the legal heirs of the deceased defendant, in such a case, should a plaintiff suffer? the answer is clear 'no' and in my view once the plaintiff had failed to give names of all the legal heirs of the deceased in his application, it was incumbent upon the other legal heirs to point out to the deficiency.