Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Matindu Prakash (Deceased) By L. Rs v. Bachan Singh And Others

Supreme Court Of India

Jan 22, 1976

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arose from a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and ejectment. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge reversed that decision and decreed the suit on appeal. In second appeal, a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the District Judge and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before a Division Bench, which reversed the Single Judge and decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.

The defendants subsequently sought a certificate of fitness from the High Court to appeal further, asserting that the value of the subject-matter was not less than Rs. 20,000. The High Court granted the certificate.

A significant procedural development was raised by the defendants: during the pendency of the LPA, two of the appellants therein (Kartar Singh and Arjan Singh) allegedly died on 10 June 1960 and 20 March 1961, respectively, and no steps were taken to bring their heirs/legal representatives on record. The defendants unsuccessfully attempted a review petition and later obtained permission from the Division Bench to raise this ground in the certificate proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench abated due to the death of Kartar Singh and Arjan Singh during its pendency and the failure to substitute their heirs/legal representatives.
If abatement occurred, whether it resulted in abatement of the appeal as a whole (with the consequence of dismissal of the entire suit/appeal) or only abatement qua the deceased appellants.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants-Appellants' Contentions

They asserted that Kartar Singh and Arjan Singh (plaintiffs-appellants in the LPA) died during the pendency of the LPA and that no steps were taken to bring their heirs/legal representatives on record.
On that basis, they averred that the LPA before the Division Bench abated.
They sought to raise this abatement ground in connection with the proceedings for grant of certificate of fitness to appeal, and the Division Bench permitted them to do so.

Plaintiffs-Respondents' Stand

They did not dispute the fact of the deaths as recorded by the Court (and did not appear to have contested it before the High Court or in the statement of case in this Court).
They took the position that the appeal did not abate “as a whole.”

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the fact of death of Kartar Singh and Arjan Singh during the pendency of the LPA was not disputed by the respondents in the relevant proceedings and statement of case. However, the Court treated the decisive question—whether such deaths and non-substitution caused abatement of the entire LPA or only as against the deceased appellants—as one that depends on examination of the record, including the nature of pleadings, the relief granted, and other materials.

Since the High Court (Letters Patent Bench) had not gone into this abatement question, the Court considered it appropriate not to decide it conclusively at this stage. Instead, it directed the High Court to record a finding and decide whether the LPA abated as a whole or only qua the deceased appellants, and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED; SET ASIDE AND REMANDED. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court (Letters Patent Bench) and remitted the Letters Patent Appeal to the High Court to determine and record a finding on whether the appeal had abated as a whole or only with respect to the deceased appellants, and then dispose of the appeal according to law. There was no order as to costs.

The direct implication is that the Division Bench decree in favour of the plaintiffs (in the LPA) was not allowed to stand as final at this stage; the High Court must reconsider the LPA in light of the abatement question. The opinion, on the provided text, does not articulate any broader legal implications or the creation of new precedent beyond ordering a remand for determination on abatement.

Show all summary ...

JUDGMENT S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. This is a defendant's appeal by certificate granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court by order dated the 12th July 1967. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and ejectment, which was in the first instance dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal the Judgment was reversed and the suit was decreed by the District Judge. Thereafter, the defendant went up in second appeal to the High Court which was heard by a single Judge who reversed the decision of the District Judge and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs-respondents then filed an appeal under the Letters Patent before a Division Bench of the High Court, which reversed the Judgment of the single Judge and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Thereafter, the defendants moved the High Court for granting a certificate of fitness as the value a of the subject-matter was Rs. 20,000 or more. The High Court having found that the value of the subject-matter was not less than Rs. 20,000/- granted the certificate of fitness. It may be mentioned here that while the appeal was pending before the High Court according to the appellants, two of the appellants in the Letters Patent appeal in the High Court, namely, Kartar Singh and Arjan Singh died on the 10th June, 1960 and 20th March 1961, respectively, and despite this the appellants did not take any steps to bring the heirs and legal representatives of those appellants on the record. The defendants unsuccessfully tried to file a review petition before the High Court, raising this question, and ultimately they filed an application before the Division Bench of the High Court for permitting them to raise this ground in the application given before the High Court for grant of the certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court, and this prayer was allowed. The assertion by the appellants was made in the presence of the respondents who do not appear to have contested this fact either before the High Court or even in this Court in their statement of case. The appellants have clearly averred in their statement of case in the present appeal that the appeal before the Division Bench abated as the heirs of the deceased Kartar Singh and Arjan-Singh (Plaintiffs-appellants before the High Court) had not been brought on the record and the respondents in their statement of case have merely taken stand that the appeal does not abate as a whole. In the circumstances, therefore, it is clear that the fact that Kartar Singh and Arjan Singh died during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench is not disputed by the respondents. The question whether the appeal abates as a whole so as to entail a dismissal of the entire suit is a matter which can be gone into after a perusal of the nature of the pleadings, the relief granted by the court and other materials on the record. As the High Court has not gone into this question we would allow this appeal, set aside the Judgment of the High Court (of the Letters Patent Bench) and remit the Letters Patent appeal to the High Court to record a finding and decide whether by virtue of the deceased appellants before it. the Letters Patent appeal abated as a whole resulting in the dismissal of the appeal itself or the appeal had abated qua the deceased appellants before it. and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. There will be no orders as to costs.