The main legal point established in the judgment is that the succession of agricultural land is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, and the amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, prevent the abatement of the appeal due to the death of a party.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) thorough LRs Vs LChandrikaand others, (2016) 6 SCC 157.

2. This judgment shall dispose of three connected appeals bearing RSA No.1064 of 1995, RSA12001995 and RSA No.3 of 2003. The learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that these three connected appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.

3. In the considered opinion of the Court, the following questions of law require adjudication:-

1. If succession opens before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Act'), but after the adoption of the Constitution of India, whether intestate succession with respect to agricultural land would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1937 Act'), or by para 159 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual providing for rule of primogeniture?

2. If the immovable property is irrevocably donated by a big landowner in favour of his purohit, whether the ownership still continues to vest with the landowner or the donee would be deemed to have become owner of the property which has been so donated?

4. The learned counsel representing the plaintiff submits that late Smt. Leelawati has died without leaving behind any legal heir, therefore, the appeal shall stand abated. He relies upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in:-

1. Venigalla Koteswaramma vs Malempati Suryamba (2021) 4 SCC 246, and

2. Gurnam Singh (D) Through Lrs & Ors vs Gurbachan Kaur (D) Through Lrs (2017) 13 SCC 414.

5. It may be noted here that the High Court for the State of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh has made amendments in Order 22 Rule 2, 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As per Order 22 Rule 11 CPC, on the death of Smt. Leelawati, Rule 3 of Order 22 shall be applicable. The amendment brought in Order 22 Rule 3 Sub-Rule 2 vide notification dated 21.01.1992, is extracted as under:-

'PUNJAB, HARYANA AND CHANDIGARH.- For existing sub-rule(2) of Rule 3 substituted:-

Rule 3(2): where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall not abate as against the deceased plaintiff and the judgment may be pronounced notwithstanding his death which shall have the same effect as if it has been pronounced before the death took place, and the contract between the deceased and the pleader in that event shall continue to subsist.' - Haryana Gazette, 25-2-1992, Pt. III(LS), p. 253- Chandigarh Administration Gazette, 21-2-1992, Extra., p. 196"

6. It is evident that as per the amendment, the appeal shall not abate against the deceased appellant and the judgment may be pronounced notwithstanding his death which shall have the same effect as if it has been pronounced before the death and the contract between the deceased and the pleader, in that event, shall continue to subsist. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Venigalla Koteswaramma's case (supra) is arising from a State in which there is no corresponding amendment in Order 22 of CPC. In Gurnam Singhs' case (supra), the attention of the Court was not drawn to the amendment in Order 22 Rule 3(2) and 4 as applicable to the States of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. Hence, in the humble opinion of this Court, the view in Gurnam Singh's case (supra) would have to be treated as per incuriam. In any case, it may be noted that late Smt. Leelawati, during her lifetime, executed a registered lease of the property in favour of Sh. Janak Raj, Sh. Papu Ram and Sh. Ramesh Kumar vide lease deed dated 12.08.1994. There is an application filed for impleading the lessees as her legal representatives. The expression 'legal representatives' is