Decided on July 07,2005

SHIV DAYAL Appellant
SANTRAM Respondents


- (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.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.