Skip to content


Pyare and ors. Vs. Pyare S/O Hira and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Civil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 385 of 1948
Judge
Reported inAIR1952P& H306
ActsTenancy Law; Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 - Sections 80; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 22, Rule 11
AppellantPyare and ors.
RespondentPyare S/O Hira and ors.
Appellant Advocate F.C. Mittal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Shamair Chand, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredBadri Narain v. Rameshwar Dayal
Excerpt:
.....on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept..........j. 1. this is a defendants' appeal against a judgment and decree passed by mr. manohar lal vijh, senior subordinate judge, delhi, dismissing the appeal of the landlords against the decree passed against them by the subordinate judge on the ground that the appeal had abated due to the death of one of the landlords. 2. kure was the occupancy tenant of the land in dispute under section 6 of the punjab tenancy act. pyare sued the landlords for possession of the tenancy land in dispute on the ground that he had been adopted as a son by kure deceased. this suit was decreed and an appeal was taken to the senior subordinate judge. 3. during the pendency of the appeal, one of the landlords, gordhan son of sis ram, died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record within the time.....
Judgment:

Kapur, J.

1. This is a defendants' appeal against a judgment and decree passed by Mr. Manohar Lal Vijh, Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dismissing the appeal of the landlords against the decree passed against them by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the appeal had abated due to the death of one of the landlords.

2. Kure was the occupancy tenant of the land in dispute under Section 6 of the Punjab Tenancy act. Pyare sued the landlords for possession of the tenancy land in dispute on the ground that he had been adopted as a son by Kure deceased. This suit was decreed and an appeal was taken to the Senior Subordinate Judge.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, one of the landlords, Gordhan son of Sis Ram, died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record within the time allowed by lawand the Senior Subordinate Judge held that the whole of the appeal had abated.

4. In appeal, Mr. Fakir Chand Mital submits that by the death of one of the landlords the whole of the appeal does not abate because the landlords had specified shares in the tenancy and he relies on the observations made by Sir Shadi Lal, C. J., in 'Sant Singh v. Gulab Singh', 10 Lah 7(FB). The present case is, however, a different one. The present case relates to the occupancy tenancy and is between the tenants on the one hand and the landlords on the other. The tenancy is an indivisible one. The landlords as a body constitute one landlord and if one of them dies and his legal representatives are not brought on the records, the suit or appeal must abate.

5. In 'Akbar v. Hukam Singh', A. I. R. 1930 Lah 353, Jai Lal, J. in a similar case now before me, held that the suit abated as a whole.

6. Quite recently, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in 'Badri Narain v. Rameshwar Dayal', A. I. R. 1951 S. C. 186, have laid down that landlords and tenants qua each other form one indivisible whole. This is a judgment which is binding upon me, and relying upon this, I hold that by the death of one of the landlords whose legal representatives are not brought on the record the appeal has rightly been held to have abated as a whole.

7. I therefore dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, but in the circumstances of this case leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //