SURENDRA MOHAN MATHUR Vs. PYARELAL MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was taken up for hearing today on the request of the learned counsel for the parties. The facts, which have given rise to this appeal, may be briefly stated :

(2.) SURENDRA Mohan, appellant, filed a suit in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City for partition of the movable and immovable properties and for possession of all movable and immovable properties falling to his share and also for rendition of accounts of income during the last 12 years. The case of the plaintiff was that Ramnarain had two sons, Pyarelal and Radhamohan. Radha Mohan expired leaving his widow Smt. Panni Bai, defendant No. 3, and son SURENDRA Mohan, plaintiff, and three daughters, Smt. Kamla Devi, Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Pushplatadevi. Pyarelal, defendant No. Misalleged to have adopted Brijmohan, natural son of Radhamohan, who is defendant No. 2 in the suit and the wife of Brijmohan Smt. Sheelarani is defendant No. 4 in the suit. According to the plaintiff. Pyarelal, defendant No. 1, had share in the suit properties while defendant No. 2 Brijmohan and defendant No. 3 Smt Pannibai had 1/4 share each, while the plaintiff had the remaining 1/4 share in all the movable and immovable properties belonging to the Hindu Joint Family. Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit and denied the allegation of adoption of Brijmohan by Pyarelal.

(3.) THUS their Lordships have held that even if some of the legal representatives were omitted to be included, who admittedly had an interest in the property, though some of the legal representatives of the deceased party were brought on record, the appeal did not abate. Their Lordships pointed out that the correct Procedure in such cases would be that when once it is brought to the notice of the court hearing the appeal that some of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have not been brought on record and the appellant is made aware of this fault on his part, it would be his duty to bring these others on record, so that the appeal could be properly constituted. The result thereof would be that the appellant could implead the remaining legal representatives, whom he omitted to bring on record in the first instance and subsequently he could apply to the court to bring such omitted legal representatives, for the purpose of making the record complete.