Gujarat High Court
Kalidas Punjabhai Vyas vs Girdharbhai Parsotam Kristi on 27 August, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1991)2GLR1078
Author: G.T. Nanavati
Bench: G.T. Nanavati
JUDGMENT G.T. Nanavati, J.
1. This petition is filed against the judgment of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application TEN. B.A. 604 of 1982. The petitioner was declared a deemed purchaser of land bearing S. No. 510 and the purchase price was fixed at Rs. 1450.80 by the Mamlatdar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Anand. Aggrieved by that order, Maganbhai Purshottambhai and Girdharbhai Purshottambhai, the co-owners of the land, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector, Anand. It was dismissed. They therefore, filed the aforesaid revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
2. Sometime thereafter, i.e., on 18-12-1982, Maganbhai died. His heirs were not brought on record and the learned Advocate appearing for both the applicants gave an application to the Tribunal for deleting the name of Maganbhai. The petitioner thereupon raised a contention that the whole revision application abated as the heirs of Maganbhai have not been brought on record at all. The Tribunal rejected the contention in view of Regulation No. 24 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 1958 and held that the revision application could proceed so far as applicant No. 2 was concerned. The Tribunal then proceeded to hear the matter on merits and allowed the revision application and remanded the case to the Mamlatdar for fresh inquiry. The order whereby the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's objection and decided the revision application on merits is challenged in this petition.
3. The petitioner has appeared in person and his contention is that as the heirs of Maganbhai were not brought on record, the whole revision application abated. He placed reliance upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Sarup v. Munshi and Rameshwar Prasad v. Nathu Ram .
4. The question which arises is whether the whole revision application abated because Maganbhai, one of the applicants, died and his heirs have not been brought on record. It is not in dispute that Maganbhai has left behind him some heirs and the present respondent-Girdharbhai is not his heir. As stated earlier, the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's contention in view of Regulation No. 24. The said Regulation reads as under:
24. Procedure in case of death of one of the appellants or applicants or of sole appellant or applicant.-If an appellant or applicant dies while the appeal or application is pending and it cannot be proceeded with unless his legal representative is made a party to the appeal or application, the Tribunal shall adjourn further proceedings to enable his legal representative to appear and apply for being made a party. If the legal representative fails to do so within ninety days from the date on which appellant or applicant dies, the appeal or application shall abate as regards the deceased, and if he be the sole appellant or applicant, the appeal or application shall be dismissed. Otherwise it shall be proceeded with as regards the remaining appellants or applicants.
5. What is contended on behalf of the respondent is that the Regulation specifically provides that an appeal or application shall be proceeded with as regards the remaining appellants or applicants. As it is specifically and positively provided like that, such an appeal or application cannot be dismissed on the ground that it has abated as a whole even though the order challenged might be in the nature of a joint decree against co-owners.
6. The question whether when one of the appellants dies pending appeal and his legal heirs and representatives are not brought on record, the appeal can be proceeded with, depends upon the circumstances of the case. The criterion which is normally adopted in such cases is whether in the event of the appeal being allowed in favour of the remaining appellants there would or would not be contradictory decrees. It is held that when it gives rise to contradictory decrees, the appeal abates as a whole. That view has been taken by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram ; Ram Sarup's case (supra) and HariharPradad v. Balmiki Prasad . Though the said case had arisen under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in my opinion, has a general application and should apply to all judicial proceedings. The rule making authority could not have intended to frame a regulation contrary to this general principle. Therefore, even though Regulation appears to have been worded in such a manner as to create an impression that appeal or revision before the Tribunal will abate as regards deceased only, and has to be proceeded with as regards the remaining appellants or applicants, it will have to be read consistently with this general principle. If the said Regulation is not read in that manner, it would create an anomalous situation. For example, in a given case it may happen that a tenant is declared to be a deemed purchaser of a particular land and such an order becomes final qua one co-owner and qua the other co-owner a contrary finding viz., that the said tenant is not a deemed purchaser may be recorded, if Regulation 24 is interpreted in the manner suggested by the learned Advocate for the respondent. Therefore, the words, "Otherwise it shall be proceeded with as regards the remaining appellants or applicants" will have to be interpreted to mean that the appeal or application shall be proceeded with as regards the remaining appellants or the applicants where otherwise it is possible to proceed with the same, without giving inconsistent findings and passing inconsistent orders.
7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is erroneous and for that reason the judgment and order passed by it will have to be set aside.
8. In the result, this petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 604 of 1982 is quashed and set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for passing appropriate order in the revision application in light of the observations made in this judgment. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.