Sathasivam, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in R.S.A. No.501 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.

3. Brief facts :

(a) One Shanker Lal owned and possessed several lands in District Shimla including the land in question. Originally the land in question was owned by Smt. Lari Mohansingh @ Madna Wati and was in occupation of Shanker Lal as a tenant. After coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, Shanker Lal, moved an application on 21.1.1957, for proprietary rights under section 11 of the said Act before the Compensation Officer, Mahesu. In the meantime, Madna Wati sold the suit land to Panu Ram (defendant No.2) on 22.10.1960. Defendant No.2 purchased the said land as benami in the name of his wife Kamla Devi (defendant No.1), who was a minor at that time. After the sale of suit land, defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 was substituted as respondents in place of Madna Wati in the application pending before the Compensation Officer. During the pendency of the application, Shanker Lal died on 7.6.1960 and after his death, his wife Reshmoo Devi was substituted as his legal representative. Vide his order dated 31.8.1964, the Compensation Officer allowed the application and granted proprietary rights to Reshmoo Devi.

(b) Against the said order, Kamla Devi (defendant No.1) preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Mahesu, who, by his order dated 14.12.1966, dismissed the same.

(c) During the pendency of the proceedings before the Compensation Officer, one Raghunath Singh Thakur of Marina Hotel, Shimla filed a Civil Suit No.80/1 of 1962 in the Court of sub-Judge, Mahesu against Madna Wati and Kamla Devi alleging that the suit land along with other land property was mortgaged with him by Madna Wati and, therefore, she had no rights to sell or transfer the suit land. The said suit was decreed in favour of Raghunath Singh. Aggrieved by the said order they filed an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and Reshmoo Devi also preferred an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Shimla. Both the appeals were transferred to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Reshmoo Devi and set aside the order of the sub-Judge Mahesu to the extent it affected her rights and further directed her to seek remedy against Kamla Devi by a separate suit.

(d) During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, since the possession was forcibly taken from Reshmoo Devi, she filed a suit for recovery of possession being Suit No.61/1 of 1976 before the sub-Judge (I), Shimla which was decreed in her favour on 25.3.1985.

(e) Aggrieved by that judgment, Kamla Devi filed an appeal before the sub-Judge, Ist Class, Shimla. During the pendency of the appeal, Reshmoo Devi died on 25.9.1985. An application under Order XXII rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) was filed by the sister of Reshmoo Devi for bringing her on record as legal representative (LR). However, another application was filed by Hira Singh and Attar Singh that they may be brought on record as LRs of Reshmoo Devi on the basis of a Will.

(f) Challenging the said Will, Bhau Ram, the appellant herein, who was the nephew of Reshmoo Devi, filed an application to implead himself as LR of Reshmoo Devi. By order dated 29.11.1986, sub-Judge Iast Class, Shimla held tht Bhau Ram, the appellant herein, being the son of real brother of Shanker Lal, husband of Reshmoo Devi is the only legal representative.

(g) The appeal filed Kamla Devi and others was registered as Civil Appeal No.118-S/13 of 1987. By order dated 2.12.1987, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by Reshmoo Devi for possession as barred by limitation. The appellant herein, who was s