The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of proceedings initiated by one party for the benefit of the estate of another party, and the doctrine of merger in relation to the withdrawal of an appeal.

Hemant Gupta, J. - This order shall dispose of LPA No. 171 of 2004, arising out of the order dated 14.5.2003, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 419 of 1996 filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed, and LPA No. 31 of 2004 against the order dated 27.2.2004, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby an application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 14.5.2003, was dismissed.

2. The relevant facts as made out from the paper book are that in the year 1974, Sarwan Singh; Sukhdev Singh; Kamikkar Singh and Chetan Singh sons of Kartar Kaur widow of Mehar Singh filed a Civil Suit for declaration that land measuring 68 bighas and 17 biswas does not vest in defendant No. 2 i.e. Gram Panchayat and that the order dated 28.7.1971 and 25.3.1974 passed by the Assistant Collector, Sangrur, are inexecutable. The said suit was decreed on 16.8.1978. The first appeal was dismissed. However, in the second appeal against the aforesaid judgment, this Court found that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred vide its judgment dated 19.3.1981. However, liberty was given to the plaintiffs to seek their remedy from the competent Court.

3. Thereafter, the aforesaid plaintiffs filed a suit under section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter refened to as the Act), before the District Development and Panchayat Officer. The present appellant was impleaded as proforma respondent No. 5. The prayer in this suit was that the applicants and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the owners and in possession of the land measuring 68 bighas and 17 biswas and that the order dated 28.3.1971 and 25.3.1974 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sangrur, are without jurisdiction. The said application was allowed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer on 5.5.1986. The appeal preferred by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed on 20.6.1990. However, in the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, the orders passed by the authorities under the Act were set aside and it was held that the land in dispute vests with the Panchayat vide order dated 14.5.2003. The plaintiffs before the Collector filed LPA No. 386 of 2003 which was dismissed as withdrawn after recording an argument of the counsel for the Parchayat.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present appeal. Firstly, the appellant, as a legal heir of Mehar Singh, does not possess any better right than what her brothers had. The brothers of the appellant prosecuted application under Section 11 of the Act and when an appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court against the order dated 14.5.2003. In fact, it was Mehar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, who was alleged to be the right holder of the land in Jumla Musterka Malkan. It was after the death of Mehar Singh on 11.4.1974, the brothers of the appellant and the appellant stepped into the shoes of the deceased Mehar Singh. It was on the said pleadings, brothers of the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. Thus, the rights of the appellant are not better than the rights of her brothers. The estate of Mehar Singh was represented by the brothers of the appellant. In fact, the brothers were the ones, who invoked the jurisdiction of the Collector and taken all steps as are required by a prudent person to prosecute and defend the interest of Mehar Singh.

5. In N.K. Mohd. Sulaiman Sahib v. N. C. Mohd. Ismail Saheb and others, I A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 792, it was held that where on account of a bona fide error, the plaintiff institutes suit against a person, who is not representing the estate of a deceased person against whom the plaintiff has a claim either at all or even partially in the absence of any fraud or collusion or any other ground, which taints the decree, a decree passed against the person impleaded as heirs binds th