LexGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS versus PRATAP KARAN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 702 A GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS B V. PRATAP KARAN AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 2963 of2013 etc.) OCTOBER 09, 2015 [M. Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] c Mutation - Suit for correction and rectification of the record of right - Alleging that the land in question illegally shown as Government land - Held: All the documentary evidence including the document of title prove beyond doubt thaf.the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the suit land D - Revenue failed to show as to under which proce_edings and by what order the Revenue Records were changed showing the land as Government land - Courts below wrongly held that all jagir land became Government land, without taking into consideration relevant provisions of the Hyderabad E (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulations, 1358 Fasli - Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulations, 1358 Fasli - Sections 17 and 18 - Land Laws and Tenancy. Abatement - Death of one of the appellants - Non- F substitution of LRs - Whether resulted in abatement of the appeal qua other appellants - Held: Entire appeal shall not stand abated by reason of non-substitution of the deceased appellant because the estate was fully and substantially represented by other sharers as owners of the suit property- G In the circumstances of the case, Or.22r.2 CPC will apply- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Or.22 r.2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 98 -Appeal before High Court- Heard by Division Bench - Difference of opinion H - Reference to third judge - Plea that disposal of appeal. . 702 . GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL 703 SECRETARYv.PRATAPKARAN was not in consonance with provisions u/s. 98 - Held: In view A of sub-section (3) of s. 98, the procedure prescribed u!s. 98 shall not apply to the High Courts procedure which are governed by Letters Patent- They shall be governed by the Letters Patent of that High Court - In the present case, the order of High Court cannot be said to be vitiated on account B of non-compliance of s. 98 as the same has been passed in compliance with Clause 36 of the Letters Patent of the Andhra Pradesh High Court - Letters Patent of Andhra Pradesh High Court - Clause 36. c Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In the instant case, the plaintiffs joined together and filed the suit for rectification of the revenue record by incorporating their names as the owners and o possessors in respect of.the suit land on the ground inter a/ia that after the death of their predecessor-in-title, who was admittedly the Pattadar and Khatadar, the plaintiffs succeeded the estate as sharers being the sons of Khatadar. Indisputably, therefore, all the plaintiffs had E equal shares in the suit property left by their predecessors. Hence, in the event of death of any of the plaintiffs, the estate is fully and substantially represented by the other sharers as owners of the suit property. Therefore, by reason of non-substitution of the legal F representative(s) of the deceased plaintiffs, who died during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, entire appeal shall not stand abated. Remaining sharers, having definite shares in the estate of the deceased, shall be entitled to proceed with the appeal without the appeal G having been abated. In the said circumstances Order 22 Rule 2 CPC will come into operation and the appeal will not abate. [Paras 33, 38) [724-D; 731-E-H) Sardar Amarjit Singh Katra vs. Pramod Gupta AIR H 704 A B c D E SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. 2003 SC 2588: 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 350 - followed. Budh Ram and others vs. Bansi and others 2010 (9) SCR 674: (2010) Vol. 11 SCC 476; Harihar Singh vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh AIR 1975 SC 733: 1975 (2) scR 932: 1975 (1) sec 212; State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram (AIR 1962) SC 89: (1962) 2 SCR 636; - relied on_. Amba Bai and others vs. Gopa/ and others (2001) 5 sec 570 - distinguished. Matihdu Prakash (Deceased) by L. Rs. vs. Bachan Singh and others AIR 1977 SC 2029; State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram (AIR 1962) SC 89: (1962) 2 SCR 636; Sri Chand vs. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand AIR 1966 SC 1427: 1966 SCR 451; Ramagya Prasad Gupta vs. Murli Prasad 1973 (1) SCR 63: (1973) 2 SCC 9; Sardar Amarjit Singh Katra vs. Pramod Gupta AIR 2003 SC 2588: 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 350 -:- referred to. 2.1 A comparative study of Section 98 CPC vis-a- vns clause 36 of the amended Letters Patent of the Andhra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.