Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Anant Ram (D) By Lrs. vs Prem Lal . on 17 February, 2014
Â#
ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2109/2011
(From the judgement and order dated 29/03/2010 in RSA No.277/1997 of The
HIGH COURT OF H.P AT SHIMLA)
ANANT RAM (D) BY LRS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PREM LAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 17/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Harpreet singh, Adv.
Mr. Sumit r. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Puneet Taneja,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Devendra Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed Order.
[RAJNI MUKHI] [USHA SHARMA] SR. P.A. COURT MASTER (Signed Order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 2109 of 2011) ANANT RAM (D) BY LRS. APPELLANTS VERSUS PREM LAL & ORS. RESPONDENTS O R D E R Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 29th March, 2010 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in R.S.A. No. 277/1997. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the Second Appeal and passed the following order:
"20.Consequently, finding of the trial Court as affirmed by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff was entitled to 10 biswas area and the entries in Jamabandi for the year 1980-81, showing him in possession of only 8 biswas area are not correct, is wrong and cannot be upheld.
21. In view of the above discussion, appeal is partly accepted. Decree of the trial Court declaring the respondent- plaintiff Anant Ram as owner in possession of 10 biswas area, including 2 biswas area out of Khasra No.8, as depicted by Khasra No.8/1 in plan Ext. PW3/B, attached with demarcation report Ext. PW3/A, is set aside. However, decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant No.3 from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over Khasra NO.8/1, is upheld, since the plaintiff, as per demarcation report Ext. PW3/A, had been in possession of the said portion of Khasra No.8 since long."
- 2 -
In this appeal, it is not necessary to notice the relevant facts and submissions of the parties, as admittedly, the second appellate decree was passed against a dead person. Both the parties accepted that no such judgment and decree could have been passed against the dead person, appeal has been abated.
In these circumstances and in view of the aforesaid fact, there is no other option but to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 20th March, 2010 declaring that RSA No. 277/1997 stood abated. This order shall not come in the way of the respondents to file petition for setting aside the order of abatement and to file a petition for substitution viz. deceased defendant.
The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid orders.
...........................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) ............................J. (KURIAN JOSEPH) NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 17, 2014