MASITA Vs. GULAM RASUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, dated 6-6-1955 in a suit for division of a holding.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellants alleged in the plaint that Nathan, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit and who has since died, transferred the holding in favour of his brother Abdulla by means of a gift, that Abdulla left behind four sons, two of them being the plaintiffs and the other two being impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 and 3, that defendant No 2 ha taken possession of the entire of the holding and that the plaintiffs being equally eligible for a share in the holding prayed for a division the same. Gulam Rasul defendant No. 2 resisted the claim on the ground that Nathan made a gift of the land exclusive in his favour and that the plaintiffs had no title to claim a share therein. Mohammed Saddig defendant No. 4 did not care to defend the suit which proceeded ex parte against him Subsequently Nathan died and the plaintiffs applied for appointment of Gulam Rasul as the legal representative of the deceased. THE lower appellate court held that as this application was presented one day beyond limitation, the entire suit should abate. Hence this second appeal.