PUSHPA DEVI Vs. PARSHOTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereafter referred to as 'the Appellant') against the judgment and decree dated 22.4.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the appeal of the Appellant against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2000 dismissing the suit of the Appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) The relevant and material facts for the purpose of the present discussion are that the Appellant instituted a suit for declaration and setting the sale deed dated 3.6.1996 executed by deceased Charan Singh (represented by Respondents No. 6 to 8) in favour of Respondent/Defendant No. 10 and for declaring the decree in civil suit No. 257/90 dated 24.9.1991 titled Gian Singh etc. v. Janak Singh as null and void. The suit was contested by the deceased Defendants Gian Singh and Charan Singh (represented by Respondents No. 1 to 8 and Respondents No. 9 & 10). The suit was finally dismissed by the trial Court and the first appeal preferred by the Appellant was also dismissed by the learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala. Because of the death of Charan Singh, his legal representatives were brought on record in the first appeal. Gian Singh original Defendant and one of the Respondents in the first appeal also died admittedly during the pendency of the first appeal but in ignorance of his death the appeal proceeded and was finally dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal and has moved CMP(M) No. 382 of 2004 for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Gian Singh on record and CMP(M) No. 383 of 2004 has been moved for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and for setting aside the abatement of the first appeal. The Respondents claim that the applications and the appeal are not maintainable.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.