Admittedly, the property belongs to one Ganga Bishan who had 1/6th share in the joint family property and on his demise his widow, Daulat Kaur, came into possession as a limited owner in respect of the lands in dispute bearing plot Nos.132, 133 and 138.
Therein, the companypromise was affected between the parties and each one of the four branches were given 3 bighas 3 katas each out of a total extent of 14 bighas, 12 katas.
The death occured on July 9, 1973 and the application for substitution was filed on October 17, 1973, practically after the expiry of the nine days of limitation.
Daulat Kaur died on June 27, 1956.
The single Judge of the High Court by Judgment and decree dated June 28, 1978 dismissed the appeal holding that since the 11th defendant died on July 9, 1973 and the application for substitution was number filed within the limitation, the entire appeal stands abated and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Accordingly it reversed the decree of the trial companyrt and decreed the suit by Judgment and decree dated September 15, 1971.
The respondents plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, filed T.S. No.66/58 on October 7, 1958 to declare that the companypromise decree made in T.S. No.72/26 is null and void and does number bind them.
Thus this appeal by Special Leave.
Daulat Kaur gifted the properties to the defendants Nos.1 and 2 on April 4, 1926, which gave rise to the tile Suit No.72/26 challenging the aforesaid gift.
The appellants are the legal representatives of defendent Nos.7 to 9.
The appeal lie in a short companypass.
The appellants carried the matter in Second Appeal No.63/72.
