In a second appeal regarding a joint possession suit, the High Court held that since the appeal was already dismissed against some original plaintiffs, it abated as a whole.
The second appeal was dismissed as abated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
1.sa.606.90
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 606 OF 1990
Shri. Narayanrao Parbatrao Shinde and another
....Appellants.
Versus
Shri. Bithoba Sakharam Shinde and others ....Respondents.
Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh i/b Vineet B. Naik for the Appellants. Mr. P. J. Pawar for the Respondent No. 1(B).
CORAM: K. K. TATED, J. DATED : AUGUST 9, 2012.
P.C.:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1 of 4
S. S. MORMARE
2 1.sa.606.90
Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 425 of 1985 dated 20th October, 1990 confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on 21st March, 1985 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1164 of 1976.
4. A few facts of the matter are as under:
The Appellants are the original Defendants and the Respondents are the original Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 1164 of 1976 in the Court of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune for recovery of possession of the suit property from the Defendants and damages of Rs.400/-. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court restraining the Defendants, permanently, from obstructing the Plaintiffs' possession in the said property and from recovering rent from the tenants from the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' prayer for possession of the suit property and for recovery of rent and damages. Therefore, the Plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 425 of 1985 in the Court of the District Judge, Pune. The said Appeal was allowed by the 4th Joint Additional District Judge, Pune on 20th October, 1990 and allowed the Plaintiffs' claim for possession of the suit premises. The Appellate Court, also, held
2 of 4
S. S. MORMARE
3
1.sa.606.90
that the Plaintiffs will be entitled to make a separate application under Order 20 Rule 12(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for mesne profits.
“Joint claim against defendants-failure to implead legal representatives of deceased defendant in Appeal-Appeal abates against all, as a whole.
3 of 4
S. S. MORMARE
4
1.sa.606.90
Where a joint claim against several Defendants is made in a suit and during pendency of appeal by the plaintiff some of the defendants die and no separate claim is made against any of the defendants in appeal, the failure of the plaintiff to bring on record their legal representative results in abatement of appeal in toto.”
dismissed against the Respondent Nos. 1(c), 2 and 3. Therefore, the Second Appeal abates as a whole and the same is dismissed as abated.
4 of 4
S. S. MORMARE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal abates in toto when dismissed against some respondents in a joint claim suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Babu Sukhram Singh v/s. Ram Dular Singh and othersReferred¶28
AIR 1973 SC 204 · Who else cites this
Shri. Narayanrao Parbatrao Shinde and another
Shri. Bithoba Sakharam Shinde and others
K. K. TATED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
