PARMANAND Vs. RAMSWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 28, 1970 of the learned Additional District Judge Shri Ganganagar under which he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that it is abated.

(2.) VISHVANATH and Laxmi Narain filed a suit against the appellant in the court of learned Civil Judge Hanumangarh, in the suit For a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were jointly owners of the suit property and that the sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 Parmanand and Kewal Ram by Nathu Ram defendant No. 1 does not affect the rights of the plaintiff was claimed. After the trial the learned Civil Judge, Hanumangarh under judgment and decree dated March 30, 1966 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for both the reliefs. An appeal was filed and when the appeal was pending in the court of District Judge, Ganganagar Vishna Nath one of the plaintiff respondent died on July 21, 1966. An application under Order 22 Rule 4.C.P.C. for bringing the legal representatives of Vishna Nath was filed on August 31, 1966 wherein it was mentioned that Vishna Nath has left one son behind Ram Swroop. That application was allowed but later on it appears that it came to the notice that besides Ram -swaroop Vishvanath had Madanlal another son and Mst. Parnidevi and Inder Devi daughters of predeceased daughter Yashoda Devi. The learned Additional District Judge holding that Ramswaroop does not sufficiently represent the estate of Vishvanath deceased held that the appeal abates.

(3.) THAT the view which I have taken above, the appeal was liable to succeed but for one new development during the pendency of the appeal. The development is that Laxmi Narayan the other plaintiff also died and application in this Court was filed on behalf of Ram Swaroop that Laxmi Narayan died on 12 -7 -72. An application was not filed in this Court for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Laxmi Narayan respondent No. 2 on record. Thus the appeal abated. Because a decree was joint in favour of Laxmi Narayan and Vishwanath and therefore the possibility of conflicting decrees in case the appeal only abates qua Laxmi Narayan cannot be denied. This is in view of State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram : [1962]2SCR636 . The appeal not only abates qua Laxmi Narayan but also abates Ram Swaroop.