Bhandari, J.—This is a civil second appeal on behalf of Abdul Samad, Chand Mohammad and Mst. Asmat Nuri in a suit for possession of a room. Abdul Karim, father of appellants and the appellants Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad filed a suit against the defendant-respondents for possession of a room in the court of the Munsif, Bundi, on the 6th of May, 1949. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of the disputed room and one Khudabux was in possession of it on their behalf and the defendants had illegally dispossessed him some two months before the filing of the suit. They, therefore, claimed possession of it. During the pendency of the suit Abdul Karim died on the 1st February, 1951. On the 18th April, 1951, the two appellants, Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad, who were already plaintiffs on record, applied that they were the legal representatives of their father Abdul Karim and that their names be substituted in place of the name of their father. On notice to the defendant respondents, they replied that Abdul Karim had left other heirs also, namely another son Abdul Rahman, one daughter Mst. Asmat Nuri and the widow Mst. Kallu. The appellants Chand Mohammad and Abdul Samad, thereupon, made an application on the 30th July, 1951, that their mother Mst. Kallu had died sometime in October, 1950 before the death of Abdul Karim and that Abdul Rehman and Mst. Asmat Nuri be made the legal representatives of Abdul Karim. On the same date, two other applications were made, one on behalf of Abdul Rehman and another on behalf of Mst. Asmat Nuri with the prayer that they might be made the legal representatives of Abdul Karim along with Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad. The learned Munsif held that the application dated the 18th April, 1951, was not made by all the legal representatives of Abdul Karim and that the application dated the 30th July, 1951, was made after the time prescribed under Art. 176 of the Limitation Act, as such the suit abated as a whole. The appellants went in appeal to the court of the Civil Judge, Bundi making Abdul Rehman as one of the respondents. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal on the 3rd December, 195l, agreeing with the learned Munsif. The learned Civil Judge further held that Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad had no interest in the room in dispute during the lifetime of Abdul Karim and they could not prosecute the suit in their own right. Hence this second appeal on behalf of the defendants.

2. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that an application had been made by two of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff to be made party within the prescribed time and as such the suit could not be dismissed as it did not abate under Order 22 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff could be made party even after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Art. 176. It is further urged that the suit being a suit for possession against the trespassers, the appellants Abdul Samad and Chand Mohammad who became tenants-in-common with Abdul Rehman and Mst. Asmat Nuri, after the death of Abdul Karim, could prosecute the suit instituted by Abdul Karim, who, it is conceded, was the sole owner of the room during his lifetime.

3. On behalf of the appellants reliance is placed on the words legal representatives occurring in Order 22 rule 3 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code which runs as follows :—

"Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit."

It is urged that the words legal representative do not mean all the legal representatives and that it is not necessary that an application for bringing all the legal re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document