HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 06/08/1997 passed by Ilnd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. In Civil Appeal No. 23-A/90
whereby application filed by the applicants for bringing legal heirs of
respondent No.3 on record under Order XXII rule 4 read with Rule 9 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"), has been dismissed.
(2.) SMT . Purnimabai wife of appellant No.l filed a civil suit alleging that she purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed on 08-01-1976
from Smt. Puronibai and took possession of it. She further pleaded that
Santram respondent No.1 asked for shelter in the house for four months but
later he did not vacate the same despite notice and repeated request, therefore,
the suit for declaration; mesne profit and possession was filed against Smt.
Puronibai and Santram. Santram opposed the suit and pleaded that the suit
property was purchased by Sukhru Devi Prasad and Mohan who were in
joint possession of the same. Puronibai and her husband Devi Prasad adopted
Santram and he alone is in exclusive possession of the suit property.
Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 6-7-1979 held that the suit house has been constructed by Santram who is adopted son of
Puronibai and Devi Prasad. The said judgment and decree was challenged in
appeal and the first Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the
trial Court and remanded the case back to the trial Court vide its order dated 02-11-1985. As a result of the appellate judgment plaintiff amended the
plaint and impleaded Ghasiram and Mehtar as defendants. Thereafter,
Ghasiram and Mehtar filed their written statement. They admitted that
Santram alone is in possession and owner of the suit property. The trial
Court recorded the evidence and again decided the case vide judgment and
decree dated 31-07-1990. Learned trial Court again held that the suit house
has been reconstructed by Santram who is the adopted son of Puronibai and
Devi Prasad. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the legal
representatives of Rmimabai preferred an appeal. During pendency of the
appeal respondent Mehtar died, therefore, appellants filed an application on 12-7-96 under Order XXII Rules 4 & 9 and Section 151 of the Code for
bringing the legal representatives of Mehtar on Record. On the other hand,
respondents No. 1 & 2 opposed the application and pleaded that the appellants
had knowledge since long back about the death of Mehtar, but knowing the
fact well they did not bring the legal representatives on record within
prescribed period, therefore, the appeal has been abated, hence it be dismissed.
(3.) THE lower Appellate Court vide impugned order held that the appellants failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay in
bringing the legal representatives of Mehtar on record, therefore, the whole
suit abated and accordingly vide impugned order dismissed the application
and also dismissed the appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.