UNION OF INDIA versus SREE RAM BOHRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 29-01-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAGHUBAR DAYAL · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
SREE RAM BOHRA AND OTHERS 
January 29, 1965 
[RAGHUBAR DAYAL, R. S. BACHAWAT AND 
V. RAMASWAMY, JJ.J 
Hindu Ltw-Suit by two persons representing joint Hindu family-
Dealh of on~Appea/ against the otMr-1/ competenl-C111le of Civil 
ProcedlJ1'e (Act S of 1908), 0.22. r. 11. 
A 
B 
The respondent and B filed a suit and obtained a decree for a cer-
tain SlllD against the appellant. 
The appellant appealed to the High 
Court !Jld subsequently B died. 
The High Court dismissed an applica-
C 
lion setting aside the abatement of the appeal against B and for substi-
tution as it was of opinion that there had been gross negligence on the 
part of the appellant. When the appeal came up for hearing a preliminary 
objection was raised by the respondent that the appeal had abated entirely 
which was upheld by the High Court. On appeal by certificate, the appel-
lants contended that there could be no abatement of the appeal as the 
suit had been brought by the respondent and B as the Kartas of the 
D 
joint family and on the death of one of the Karta, the other Karla con-
tinued to represent the joint family, the real plaintiff-respondent. 
HELD : The appeal against the respondent was incompetent. 
When two representatives of a joint Hindu family sued and obtained 
a decree in their favour for the benefit of the joint Hindu family, and an 
appeal was filed against both of them as respondents representing the 
joint Hindu family, the other representative would not continue to repre-
I: 
seat the joint family on the death of one of the representatives. 
[835 
B-DJ 
Any one of them could not represent the joint f8lD11y after the death 
of the other till his authority to represent the family was confirmed by 
the members of the family. [835 F-G] 
The State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 636, relied on. 
F 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 611 of 
1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
February 11, 1959, of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Origi-
nal Decree No. 525 of 1951. 
Bishan Narain, D. R. Prem. B. R. G. K. Achlll' and R. N. 
G 
Sachthey, for the appellant. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sostri and K. K. Sinha, for 
respondents 
Nos. 1 to 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Raghubar Dayal J. 
Bilas Rai Bohra, son of Bansidhar Bohra 
and Sree Ram Bohra, son of Ganpat Ram Bohra, sued the Union 
of India for the recovery of Rs. 13,448 from the defendant tor 
H 
• 
UNION V. RAM BORRA (Dayal, /.) 
831 
A 
compensation on account of loss and damage suffered by the plain-
tifts owing to non-delivery of 11 bales of cloth which had been 
consigned on October 20, 1948 by M/s Ram Kishun Das Sagarmal 
of Bombay to the plaintiffs under the description of M/ s Banshi-
dhar Ganpat Rai. It was alleged in para 1 of the plaint that the 
plaintiffs . carried on business in cloth and other articles in the 
B name and style of M/s Bansidhar Ganpat Rai which was their 
joint family trading firm governed by the Mitakshara School of 
Hindu Law of which joint family the plaintiffs were the kartas 
and representatives and that they sued as such. 
This statement 
in para 1 of the plaint was not admitted in the written statement. 
C 
The trial Court decreed the suit on August 29, 1951. The decree, 
inter alia, said : 
"It is ordered that the suit be decreed with costs 
defendants do pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 13,448 
with interest thereon ... " 
D 
The Union of India appealed to the High Court of Patna and 
prayed for the setting aside of the decree and for the dismissal of 
the suit with costs. 
The plaintiffs-respondents were served with 
notice of the appeal. Subsequently Bilas Rai Bohra died on July 
24, 1957. On September 5, 1958, the Union of India presented an 
application for substitution under 0. 22, r. 4 read with 0. 22, r. 11, 
E 
C.P.C. for setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay. 
It was stated in the application that the applicant's advocate came 
to know of the death of Bilas Rai Bohra, plaintiff No. 1, on May 
14, 1958 when the case was on the daily list with a note to that 
effect, that he promptly communicated the fact to the railway 
authorities but due to the mistake of the Attacher, proper steps 
P 
for substitution could not be taken in time. It was further stated 
that after a good deal of enquiry and efforts for three days the 
date of the death of Bilas Rai Bohra and the names and addresses 
of his heirs and legal representatives could be as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.