9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants 1(d) and 1(e). Consequently, the first appeal was also dismissed as being incompetent in the absence of the legal representatives of the aforesaid appellants. The appellants and the respondents herein are the descendants of one Shri Bhukhalal Singh, who had two sons namely, Ramnandan Singh and Ramautar Singh. According to the appellants, the two branches of the family separated on 05.09.1947 and thereafter managed their affairs separately. The branch of Ramnandan Singh had acquired some more properties after partition and prospered. Out of sheer greed, Naga Singh son of Ramautar Singh belonging to the other branch filed a partition suit for partition of the properties left by his grandfather Bhukhalal Singh. In the said suit Ramnandan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the respondents stating these facts does not appear to have been challenged by the appellants by filing a rejoinder. However by an order dated 12.09.1997 the substitution as regards appellant No.1(a) was allowed, but the application to bring on record the legal representatives of appellant Nos.1(d) and 1(e) was deferred for consideration along with the appeal. The appeal came up for hearing before the learned Judge who by order dated 05.02.1998 refused to allow the application for substitution to bring on record the legal representatives of the appellant Nos.1(d) and 1(e). The learned Judge observed that the facts mentioned in the application for substitution had been controverted by the respondents, and since no rejoinder was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale members were not necessary parties though it became necessary for them to be brought on record upon the death of Ramnandan Singh, father of the appellants. We have given the matter our serious consideration. The case of the appellants in the appeal is that there was a previous partition and a second partition is not permissible. It is not in dispute that all the coparceners were parties in the suit, and earlier whenever deaths took place the legal representatives were brought on record by the appellants. All the three deceased appellants were female members of the family, and while substitution of the legal representatives of the mother Tetari Kuer was allowed, substitution of the legal representatives of appellants 1(d) and 1(e) was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
