Skip to content


Madhi Vs. Mahanbai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 541 of 1967
Judge
Reported inAIR1972SC1455; (1973)3SCC185
AppellantMadhi
RespondentMahanbai and ors.
Advocates: M.C. Chagla, Sr. Adv. and; P.P. Juneja, Adv
Excerpt:
- indian evidence act, 1872 section 3 :[b.n. agrawal & g.s. singhvi, jj] tape recorded evidence admissibility tests for determining stated. - during the pendency of appeal in this court one of the plaintiffs who was a joint decree-holder, as mentioned earlier, died some time in 1968, but the appellant failed to bring her legal representatives on record......decree-holder, as mentioned earlier, died some time in 1968, but the appellant failed to bring her legal representatives on record. we are informed that when this appeal came up for hearing before this court in decernber, 1970 the advocate for the respondents informed the counsel for the appellant about the death of one of the tespondents. yet the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have not been brought on record. mr. k rajendra chaudhri appearing for the appellant informs us that though he informed the local counsel as to the necessity of bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, yet the appellant has not chosen to move in that matter. under these circumstances we must hold that the appeal has abated. appeal is accordingly dismissed with.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This appeal abates. The material facts are these. The two respondents as joint plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit property. Their suit was decreed as prayed for. A joint decree in their favour was passed by the trial court. 1 he appellant appealed against the decree. The first appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. The two plaintiffs went up in appeal to the High Court. The High Court reversed the decree of the first appellate court and restored that of the trial court. Thereafter the appellant brought this appeal by special leave. During the pendency of appeal in this Court one of the plaintiffs who was a joint decree-holder, as mentioned earlier, died some time in 1968, but the appellant failed to bring her legal representatives on record. We are informed that when this appeal came up for hearing before this Court in Decernber, 1970 the advocate for the respondents informed the counsel for the appellant about the death of one of the tespondents. Yet the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have not been brought on record. Mr. K Rajendra Chaudhri appearing for the appellant informs us that though he informed the local counsel as to the necessity of bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, yet the appellant has not chosen to move in that matter. Under these circumstances we must hold that the appeal has abated. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Today's is hearing fee will not be included.


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