The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parties seeking impleadment as legal representatives to provide convincing and plausible sufficient cause to condone the delay, and the automatic abatement of an appeal on the death of the appellant if the legal representatives are not brought on record within the prescribed period.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen out of judgment and decree dated December 3,1999 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Civil Ist. Appeal No. 10 of 1988 filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 29.2.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jammu, in a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Raj Kumari widow of late Shri Chatter Singh owned property consisting of a house and land appurtenant thereto situated at Darbargarh Road, Jammu. Mst. Chander Prabha was the only daughter born out of the wedlock, who was married to Sarban Singh. Out of this wedlock, five children namely, Smt. Krishna Rajput, Smt. Sharmishta Rajput, Smt. Chandrika Bhola, Smt. Roma Bani daughters and Rajinder Singh son, were born. Mst. Raj Kumari executed will dated 22.12.1964 which was her last testament, bequeathing the major portion of the property, inclusive if the suit property, in favour of Rajinder Singh, grand son of Mst. Raj Kumari. She, however, bequeathed some property to her daughter Smt. Chander Prabha and four daughters of Smt. Chander Prabha, grand children of Smt. Raj Kumari. Raj Kumari, the Testator died in May 19,1969. All the four daughters, named above, beneficiary of the Will challenged the correctness of the will executed by their grand mother in Suit No. 27-A of 1970 in the High Court on the ground that the Testator was not of sound mind at the time of the execution of the will. The suit was dismissed on December 21, 1978. The decree of dismissal of the suit was challenged in a Letters Patent Appeal titled Smt. Krishna Rajput v. Rajinder Singh & Anr. which also came to be dismissed, upholding the validity of the will. Rajinder Singh became the owner of the property bequeathed in his favour by virtue of the operation of the will.

3. Some portion of the property bequeathed to Rajinder Singh was in possession of the appellants, his sisters. Despite service of notice by Rajinder Singh they did not surrender the possession. He instituted a suit for possession and ejectment which was resisted by the appellants/defendants. The suit was decreed in favour of Rajinder Singh holding that it is barred on the principle of Resjudicata. Appellants challenged the judgment and decree by means of Appeal No. 10 of 1988. Mst. Chandrika Bhola, also a beneficiary of the will did not contest the suit. She was arrayed as party-respondent No. 2 in the appeal.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 1 Smt. Krishna Rajput died on Sept. 13,1988. Shri Sarang Bani adopted son of Krishna Rajput deceased filed CMP No. 165/94 on 9.9.1994 for bringing him on record as legal representative of the deceased which was allowed on 14.11.1994. On 3.3.1994 appellant No. 2 Smt. Sharmishta also died. One Samir Bani claiming to be the adopted son of Miss Sharmishtra Rajput, appellant No. 2 deceased, filed CMP No. 144 of 1998 under O.22 Rule 4 CPC seeking to bring him on record as legal representative of the deceased-appellant. Along with this application, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed, seeking to condone the delay in approaching the court. It was resisted by the respondent Rajinder Singh. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and relying upon, the judgment in case Maya Ram v. Nanak Chand, reported in 1993 KLJ 174 and judgment delivered by this court in CIMA No. 115/88 titled Sohan Lal Khorana v. Sampuran Singh & Ors. decided on 4.6.1999, the averments of the subsequent suit No. 266/Civil of 1997 filed by the plaintiff/Appellants for mandatory injunction on the ground of alleged adverse possession and also the written statement filed by Rajinder Singh defendant therein, dismissed the application seeking to condone the delay and also held the appeal abated as a whole to condone the delay and also held the appeal abated as a whole being the cause of action not divisible, vid