BUDH RAM & ORS. versus BANSI & ORS.
Where a legal representative of a deceased co-owner (proforma defendant) is not substituted during pendency of appeal from a joint decree for joint possession, the appeal abates in toto, as success on appeal could result in two contradictory decrees on the same subject matter.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Budh Ram & Ors.; Respondent: Bansi & Ors.; Proforma Defendant/respondent No. 4: Smt. Parwatu
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 05 August 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From High Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Abatement of Appeals, Substitution of Legal Representatives, Joint Ownership, Partition, Order XXII Rules 4 and 4(4) CPC
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Budh Ram & Ors.
Appellant
Bansi & Ors.
Respondent
Smt. Parwatu
Proforma Defendant/respondent No. 4
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether failure to substitute legal representatives of a deceased proforma respondent leads to abatement of appeal in toto or only as regards the deceased respondent
- 2 Whether the decree is severable or joint so as to allow appeal to proceed against remaining respondents
Ratio Decidendi
Where a legal representative of a deceased co-owner (proforma defendant) is not substituted during pendency of appeal from a joint decree for joint possession, the appeal abates in toto, as success on appeal could result in two contradictory decrees on the same subject matter.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal abated in toto; no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment