BADNI Vs. SIRI CHAND
LAWS(SC)-1999-2-77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on February 15,1999

BADNI Appellant
VERSUS
SIRI CHAND Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJIV GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2001-10-17] [RELIED U (1999) SLT 217=11 (1999) CLT 46 4. AIR 1995 ALLAHABAD 2. (RELIED) [PARA 25]]
MIR YUSUF HUSSAIN VS. TRIPATHI BORDOLOI [LAWS(GAU)-2005-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
BHAIRAVENDRA KUMAR VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
CHINNAPPA REDDY M VS. M PULLA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2000-6-80] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAB ALIAS KARMU GIRI VS. DASARATHA GIRI [LAWS(ORI)-2004-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
K G KURUVILA VS. DY COLLECTOR L A [LAWS(KER)-2006-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
K MATHIVANAN VS. R JAYALAKSHMI DIED [LAWS(MAD)-2000-6-1] [REFERRED]
BANK OF INDIA VS. ORIENT WOOLLWN TEXTILE MILLS PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2003-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
YOGANDRA BHAGAT VS. PRITLAL YADAVA [LAWS(PAT)-2009-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
MST CHARKI VS. MANARAM [LAWS(CHH)-2007-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB SINGH VS. NARINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2007-11-63] [REFERRED TO]
SARANG BANI VS. RAJINDER SINGH [LAWS(J&K)-2005-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE LADHPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA & OTHERS VS. PUTUL RANI CHAKRABORTY [LAWS(CAL)-2016-6-110] [REFERRED TO]
N KHOSLA VS. RAJLAKSHMI [LAWS(SC)-2006-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA VS. HARI SINGH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE HARI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DEEPAK VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-93] [REFERRED]
KAMAL KISHORE BAGARIA VS. ERIC ALVARIS [LAWS(ORI)-2015-2-74] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI HIRALAL AND ORS VS. SH BALBIR SINGH BHATIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-2-245] [REFERRED]
RAMAN WASAN VS. JATENDER NATH SHARMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2012-10-146] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. HARI RAM & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-183] [REFERRED TO]
BARDU & ANOTHER VS. BRIJ LAL & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-213] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE RAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-11-183] [REFERRED TO]
M. MUNISWAMY VS. GMS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR LAL VS. LRS OF JAWARI LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-1-198] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In all these appeals, the common question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was right in dismissing the Regular Second Appeals as abated on account of the death of one of the appellants.
(2.)Brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as under:- The first respondent herein (since deceased), second respondent and the husband of the third respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Plaintiff-respondents' for convenience) filed eight suits for possession of the suit land by way of redemption in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Palwal, District Gurgaon. The appellants contested the suits, contending inter alia, that the plaintiff-respondents were not the successors-in-interest of the deceased-Durga Devi, to whom the suit land originally belonged. It was claimed by the plaintiff-respondents that their father, Charan Singh, was adopted by one Rattan Singh, who was, admittedly, entitled to succeed along with the appellants on the death of Durga Devi. The adoption was disputed by the contesting defendants (appellants herein) in the suits. However, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court held that the adoption was true and binding on the defendants. As a matter of fact, the Trial Court decreed two suits out of eight suits and dismissed the other six suits. The reasons for dismissal need not detain us. Against the dismissal of six suits, the plaintiffs-respondents preferred six appeals before the District Judge, Gurgaon, and the learned District Judge allowed their appeals. Against the judgment of the learned District Judge, the aforesaid R.S. As. were preferred.
(3.)As pointed out earlier, the High Court dismissed the appeals on the ground that the legal representatives of one Shiv Lal, one of the appellants before it, was not brought on record and, therefore, the appeal filed by Shiv Lal stood abated. As a result of abatement of Shiv Lal's appeal, according to the High Court, the other appeals also stood abated. Because of the common issue regarding the adoption of plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest, there cannot be two conflicting decrees. In other words, the adoption issue was common and decisive in all the appeals pending before the High Court and dismissing one appeal alone on the ground of abatement and allowing the other appeals to proceed on merits might end in conflicting decrees in case the other appeals are accepted on merits.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.