DOLAI MOLLIKO & ORS. versus KRUSHNA CHANDRA PATNAIK & ORS.

DOLAI MOLLIKO & ORS. versus KRUSHNA CHANDRA PATNAIK & ORS.

Where heirs of a deceased plaintiff or appellant are brought on record but not all are included due to oversight or doubt, the appeal does not abate and those heirs sufficiently represent the estate, unless there is fraud, collusion, or indication of lack of fair trial.

Parties
Appellants: Dolai Molliko & Ors.; Respondents: Krushna Chandra Patnaik & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 March 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated January 4, 1962 of the Orissa High Court in S.a. No. 90 of 1960
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Substitution of Legal Representatives, Abatement of Appeal, Representation of Estate

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dolai Molliko & Ors.

Appellants

Krushna Chandra Patnaik & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated January 4, 1962 of the Orissa High Court in S.a. No. 90 of 1960

  1. 1 Whether omission to bring on record all heirs of a deceased appellant causes abatement of appeal
  2. 2 Whether heirs brought on record represent the entire estate including absent heirs unless there is fraud, collusion, or unfair trial

Ratio Decidendi

Where heirs of a deceased plaintiff or appellant are brought on record but not all are included due to oversight or doubt, the appeal does not abate and those heirs sufficiently represent the estate, unless there is fraud, collusion, or indication of lack of fair trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
  • Case remitted to the High Court for decision on merits after bringing the omitted heirs on record.