Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1981, decided on 20th May, 1982.

‑‑ O. XXI1, rr. 3 & 4‑Decree in favour of dead person‑Nature of Compensation for acquired land originally awarded to mother of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who died‑District Judge accepting reference and passing decree in favour of two persons, one of whom dying during pendency of reference ‑ Legal representative despite their application in this behalf not brought on record and decree passed in favour of dead person‑No decree in favour of dead person could legally be passed: such decree being nullity in law and case remanded to implead legal representatives of deceased.

‑‑ O. XLI, r. 23‑Remand of case for recording evidence‑Court admitting document after closing of evidence and also referring it in decision ‑ Respondents ordered to adduce evidence in support. of document produced by them but order left unattended to by Court and so neither respondents able to adduce evidence nor appellant afforded opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal ‑ Case, held, fit for remand for taking evidence as ordered by trial Court.

Raja Lehrasab Khan for Appellants.

Nazir Ahmad Ghoori for Respondents.

Date of institution: 27th June, 1981.

‑This first appeal has arisen out of a reference case sent to the Court of the District Judge Mirpur by the Collector Land Acquisition who acquired the land under reference and its compensation was awarded to Mst. Bivi (who is dead) mother of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard and the perusal of the record was accordingly made.

The District Judge after trial of the reference accepted the same and passed a decree in favour of Zaman Ali and Dewan Ali applicants, rid judgment and decree dated 28‑3‑1981. Zaman Ali applicant died during the pendency of reference and his legal representatives, despite an application moved on their behalf, were not brought on record as warranted and decree was passed in favour of a deal person namely Zaman Ali. No decree in favour of a dead person could legally be passed by the trial Court and so the decree under appeal passed in favour of Zaman Ali deceased‑applicant is a nullity in the eye of law.

Moreover, perusal of the record of the case disclosed that a sale‑d allegedly of the land under reference was additionally admitted after the close of the evidence of the parties. This sale‑deed was referred to by the trial Court while giving its decision on the issues involved. The interlocutor orders pertaining to the sale‑deed admitted in evidence show that the respondents were ordered to adduce evidence in support of the sale‑de produced by them but no evidence as was ordered could be taken by the trial Court and no opportunity to the appellants was at all afforded in rebuttal of the additional evidence in shape of a sale‑deed.

The contention of the appellants is that the land entered in the sale deed bears a distinct survey number as against the survey numbers of the land in dispute.

In this circumstance, the respondents were bound to prove in ascertaining that land in dispute corresponds to the survey numbers entered in the sale‑deed and further to disclose as to what were ,be circumstances under which a change in the survey numbers occurred for the land entered in the sale‑deed, if corresponding to the survey numbers of the land under reference. The order for production of additional evidence was left unattended to by the trial Court with the result that neither the respondents were able to adduce evidence as ordered nor the appellants were afforded opportunity to le a evidence in rebuttal of the additional evidence. '

That being so, for the reasons above this is a case to be remanded for impleading legal representatives of Zaman Ali deceased as a party as the bar of limitation in context of the rule of abatement does not apply to the proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and as application for impleading them as a party was not heeded to by the trial Court or which a proper order is to be made as directed hereto and further to take evidence as ordered by the trial Court, vide its orders dated 15‑5‑1978 and 29‑5‑1980 which were totally ignored by the trial Court and no occasion for leading evidence could have arisen as the case was carelessly dealt with and unnecessarily delayed. The case is thus remanded to the trial Court to proceed with the same in accordance with law as indicated above and is further directed to see that the case is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of District Judge Mirpur on 24‑5‑1982.

K. M. A. Appeal allowed:

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.