SUJA Vs. RAM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-4-1985 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sambhar Lake in Civil Appeal No. 3/82 (1/84) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 1-2-1982 passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Sambhar Lake in Civil Suit No. 4/ 73 (BT. 1/ 81). The brief facts are as under :-

(2.) Laxmi Narain (the deceased) was the khatedar of the agricultural land in dispute situated in village Phagi of district Jaipur. He died on 10-3-1958 and after his death Ram Narain (the defendant No. 1), claiming to be the adopted son of the deceased, claimed the khatedari rights in respect of the above said land and mutation in his favour was sanctioned on 11-8-1958. The defendant No. 1 sold a part of the property in dispute to Bhoora Mehravar son of Ganga Bux (the defendant No. 2), a party to Jagdish son of Shri Bux (defendant No. 3) and another part to Bajrang son of Suja (the defendant No. 4) and executed sale deeds in their favour. Bhoora son of Lala (the plaintiff), who was the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants instituted a suit stating that the deceased had left behind no heir of class- I and that he was the nearest relation of the deceased and had as such inherited his rights in the property in dispute and that the defendant No.1 was a distant relation of the deceased and had not acquired any right in the estate left behind by him and that the sale deeds executed by the said defendant in favour of the other three defendants were of no effect and were liable to be cancelled. He thus prayed for a decree for declaration that he had inherited the rights of the deceased in the property in dispute and that the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the above-said three defendants were void and of no effect and for possession of the land sold to the defendants Nos. 2. to 4 under those sale deeds. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendant No.1 has pleaded that the deceased had adopted him as his son during his lifetime and as such after the death of the deceased he had inherited the property in dispute and had rightly sold some parts of the same to the defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The defendants Nos. 2 to 4 also contested the suit and pleaded that they had purchased the property in question under the sale deeds validly executed by the defendant No.1. After framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant No. 1 had been adopted by the deceased during his lifetime and after the death of the deceased had inherited the property in dispute and had validly sold the parts of the same in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. Consequently, vide the judgment and decree dated 1-2-1982, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. After the pronouncement of the above-said judgment and some time before the plaintiff could file the appeal, the defendant No. 2 Bhoora Mehravan son of Ganga Bux died and the plaintiff, who did not know this fact, filed an appeal impleading Bhoora as one of the respondents. An application was moved on behalf of the defendant No. 1 stating that the legal representatives of Bhoora having not been impleaded in the appeal, it had abated land praying that it be dismissed as such. The plaintiff, thereupon, prayed that the name the above said defendant-respondent be deleted from the array of the respondents and consequently, the name of the said defendant-respondent was deleted. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the legal representatives of Bhoora son of Ganga Bux not having been impleaded the appeal had abated and dismissed the appeal as such. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing this second appeal. During the pendency of the appeal in this court the plaintiff died and the present appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives.

(3.) I have heard, Shri M.M. Ranjan, Advocate for the appellants, Shri K.N. Jain Advocate for the respondents and have also perused the record of the case.