DHANNA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, dated January 31, 1'970, by which it held that the appeal of the petitioners had abated, and has dismissed the appeal without giving a decision on merits.

(2.) ONE Hanuman Prasad predecessor-in-interests of respondents Nos. 2 to 9 filed a suit claiming that he was a Khatedar tenant and seeking a declaration of the same and seeking possession of the suit land. The suit was resisted by Ram bux, the father of the petitioner No. 1 and respondents Nos. 14 to 16, and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and by one Ratna. Suit of he respondents Nos. 2 to 9 was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, but on appeal, it succeeded before the revenue Appellate Authority, who by order dated July 29, 1964, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs against the defendants for a declaration that the plaintiffs be declared Khatedar tenant of Khasra Nos. 1019/1 and 1020/1. Thereafter the defendant tiled an appeal before the Board of Revenue. Before the Board of revenue, Ram Bux had died and he was substituted by the Board by petitioner no. 1 and respondents Nos. 14 to 16 and so also before this Court. Petitioners nos. 2 and 3 were the other defendants, who were arrayed as appellants before the Board. Ratna, the other defendant, against whom also a joint decree along with other defendants had been passed was joined as one of the respondents to the appeal.

(3.) RATNA died during the pendency of the appeal before the Board of Revenue. No legal representative of his was impleaded; rather the petitioners applied to the Board to delete the name of Ratna. The legal representatives of Ratna also filed an application for being impleaded in his place but the same was rejected by the Board as being time barred. When the matter came up for hearing before the Board, objection was taken that as neither Ratna nor his legal representatives were parties to the suit, the appeal had abated in toto. This has found favour with the Board and the petitioners being aggrieved have come up to this Court in writ petition.