MANIDEVI Vs. AMBADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal was filed initially by defendant Mahadev. He died thereafter and it is not in dispute that his legal representatives Smt. Manidevi, Loonkaran, Mahaveer and Sitadevi have been brought on the record according to the law. Plaintiff-respondent Ambadan died on February 2, 1965, in the life-time of Mahadeo, and a great deal of controversy has been raised on the question whether his legal representatives have been brought on the record in time. The fate of the appeal therefore depends on the answer to the question whether it has abated against the deceased Ambadan and cannot be continued in the circumstances of the case and must be dismissed as a whole.

(2.) TO appreciate the controversy, I shall state the relevant facts bearing on the question of abatement and, as it happens, they are not in dispute.

(3.) IT has then been argued by Mr. Jain that it should not matter if one of the legal representatives of Ambadan war a married daughter for she could also be represented by his son Rugdan. The argument has been supported by reference to Dolai Maliko and others vs. Krushna Chandra Patnaik and others (3 ). I do not however see how such an argument can be of any avail to the appellants in the present case because the appeal had abated against Ambadan for the reason mentioned above and it will not mitigate the rigour of that inescapable conclusion to hold that the married daughter could be represented by her brother Rughdan if a proper application had been made according to the law.