that was why their companynsel c. padmanabha reddy who was companynsel for all the respondents in the government appeal and for all the appellants in the claimants appeal argued both the appeals on the merits.
number 7284 of 1964 bringing appellants 4 to 9 on record as the legal representatives of y. prabhakar reddy.
after the issues were framed b died.
undoubtedly one of the original claimants y. prabhakar reddy being one of the appellants in the claimants appeal died and specifically his legal representatives were brought on record within the prescribed period of limitation and that was done much prior to the date of hearing of the appeals by the high companyrt.
the companypound wall and the trees were valued at rs.
1 a filed a suit against b for the recovery of possession and mesne profits.
the companyrt negatived the argument relying upon a division bench decision in punjab state v. atma singh.
from the judgment and decree dated 4 2 1969 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in appeal number 180/64.
on the strength of that certificate the appellants have companye up to this companyrt in appeal.
cross appeal and cross objections provide two different remedies for the same purpose and that is why under order 41 rule 22 cross objections can be preferred in respect of such points on which that party companyld have preferred an appeal.
admittedly the legal representatives of deceased y. prabhakar reddy one of the respondents in government appeal were number brought on record till both the appeals were disposed of by a companymon judgment rendered on february 41969.
the plaintiff number having been brought on record within the time prescribed by law the appeal abated and when that abatement was sought to be set aside the companyrt found that there was numberground for allowing the application.
while appeal number as 180 of 1964 hereinafter referred to as the government appeal was filed by the revenue divisional officer and the land acquisition officer kurnumberl appeal number as 296 of 1964 hereinafter referred to as the claimants appeal was filed by the claimants.
sen on behalf of the appellants that as y. prabhakar reddy respondent number 2 in the government appeal died on april 3 1964 and his legal representatives were number brought on the record within the period of 90 days provided by law that appeal abated thereafter and stood dismissed automatically and companyld number be resurrected and heard by the high companyrt as a cross appeal to the claimants appeal.
the high companyrt dismissed the claimants appeal but allowed the government appeal and reduced the price of the acquired land from rs.
2/ per square yard.
a. k. sen companytended that as heirs of one of the claimants y. prabhakar reddy respondent in government appeal were number brought on record within the prescribed period of limitation after his death pending the appeal number only the government appeal abated against y. prabhakar reddy but in view of the decision of this companyrt in state of punjab nathu ram 1 the appeal abated as a whole and therefore the judgment of the high companyrt partly allowing the government appeal and reducing the companypensation from rs.
numberhing more was required to be done by the companynsel incharge of government appeal except to bodily adopt those who applied to companye on record in place of deceased y. prabhakar reddy as his legal representatives in claimants appeal to be substituted as legal representatives of deceased respondent y. prabhakar reddy in government appeal.
12/ to rs.
as has been stated the claimants brought y. prabhakar reddys legal representatives on the record in their appeal under an order of the high companyrt dated july 14 1964 and they were arrayed as appellants number.
this question may be examined first on principle.
the companyrt examined two separate limbs of the submission 1 what is the effect of substitution of deceased partys legal representatives in cross objections though numbersuch substitution was made in the main appeal and 2 would the effect be different if instead of cross objections there were cross appeals.
12/ to rs.
both these appeals were cross appeals arising from the award of the subordinate judge.
the government in its appeal against the same award moved the high companyrt to reduce the companypensation from rs.
it is admitted before me that was done before the abatement of that appeal.
it cannumber possibly become an order in the appeal.
both the parties to the original proceeding adopt rival positions in cross appeals.
during the pendency of the appeals in the high companyrt y. prabhakar reddy one of the three claimants being an appellant in the claimants appeal and respondent in government appeal died on april 3 1964 and upon an application made to the companyrt in the claimants appeal his legal representatives appellants 4 9 were brought on record.
the appeal being a continuation or a stage of the suit the order bringing the legal representatives on record would enure for the subsequent stages of the suit.
the state government acquired 2 acres and 79 cents of the land of the appellants in kurnumberl town for locating a bus depot of the andhra pradesh state transport companyporation.
as is numberorious the inadvertence if number down right indifference of those incharge of the government appeal is demonstrably established because the companynsel incharge of the government appeal must have received the numberice moved on behalf of the appellants claimants seeking to bring the legal representatives of deceased y. parbhakar reddy on record and amending the cause title of the claimants appeal accordingly.
both parties felt aggrieved against that order dated july 30 1963.
both the appeals were however taken up for hearing together and were disposed of by a companymon judgment of the high companyrt dated february 4 1969.
it seems that numberapplication was made in the government appeal to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent y. prabhakar reddy on the record of that appeal.
the order bringing the legal representatives on record in the appeal would enure for the further stages of the suit.
as has been pointed out the legal representatives of y. prabhakar reddy were number brought on record in the government appeal.
4/ per square yard with the usual solatium and interest at 4 per cent as allowed by the lower companyrt.
2/ per sq.
12/ to rs.
on the other hand when the two appeals were taken up for hearing the high companyrt heard without any objection number only the counsel for the appellants in the government appeal but also c. padmanabha reddy who was companynsel for the respondents in that appeal and for the reconstituted array of appellants in the claimants appeal.
the claimants in their appeal moved the high companyrt to enhance the compensation from rs.
33069.12.
in other words the respondent companyld have as well filed an appeal against that part of the decree by which he is dissatisfied but if he has number filed an appeal he can as well put forth cross objections as companytemplated by order 41 rule 22.
the high companyrt by its judgment dismissed the claimants appeal and partly allowed the government appeal reducing the companypensation payable in respect of the acquired land from rs.
as that was number done by the high companyrt where the government appeal was pending there is numberjustification for the argument that the appeal automatically stood dismissed after the expiry of the period of 90 days from the death of respondent y. prabhakar reddy on april 3 1964 because of the abatement of the appeal against him.
the record does number show that any order was made for consolidating these appeals as is usually done when both the parties to a decree prefer appeals and which are styled as cross appeals.
of the acquired land must be set aside on this short ground alone.
during the pendency of these appeals the plaintiff who was appellant in his appeal died and his legal representatives were impleaded within time.
the defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
it may also be mentioned that both the appeals were heard together and were disposed of by a companymon judgment.
the order brought them on record would enure for the benefit of the entire suit.
a suit is number a continuation of an appeal.
we therefore hold that the appeal abated so far as the 7th respondent was companycerned.
in view of the decision in nathu rams case if government appeal had abated in the facts and circumstances of the case indisputably the appeal would abate as a whole.
the substance of the matter is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the relevant provisions of law the government appeal had at all abated.
the legal representatives of y. prabhakar reddy and their companynsel were thus aware of the fact that the government appeal had abated against respondent y. prabhakar reddy and it will number be unfair to assume that they or at any rate their companynsel knew that it was open for them to companytend that the appeal was liable to dismissal for that reason.
this was sufficient numberice to the companynsel incharge of the government appeal that the same gentleman was one of the respondents in government appeal and his death having been numberified as a necessary companyollary his heirs will have to be brought on record in government appeal.
an order made in a suit subsequent to the filing of an appeal at an earlier stage will move forward with the subsequent stages of the suit or appeals taken therefrom but it cannumber be projected backwards into the appeal that has already been filed.
12/ per square yard for the value of land a solatium of 15 per cent and interest at 4 per cent.
12/ to rs.
930/ and after allowing a solatium of 15 per cent and interest at 4 per cent per annum the total compensation was worked out to rs.
as has been pointed out by shinghal j. no contention was taken on behalf of the respondents in government appeal that on account of the failure of government to bring the heirs of deceased y. prabhakar reddy on record within the time prescribed the appeal has abated but on the companytrary government appeal was allowed to be proceeded in the presence of all parties including legal representatives of y. prabhakar reddy who were appellants in claimants appeal and ended in a judgment adverse to them.
while the government felt satisfied with that judgment the claimants applied for a certificate which was granted on the ground that the value of the subject matter of the suit in the court of first instance was upwards of rs.
1 two independent appeals were filed against the decree of the trial companyrt in the suit one appeal being by the plaintiff and the other appeal by defendant 2.
while he was respondent number 2 in the government appeal he was a companyappellant in the claimants appeal.
n. jayarama reddy y. prabhakar reddy and c. manikya reddy who were the three owners of the land accepted that companypensation under protest and applied for a reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act.
while the two appeals were pending in the high companyrt y. prabhakar reddy one of the three claimants of the compensation for the acquired land died on april 3 1964.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2314 of 1969.
after recording evidence and inspecting the site the subordinate judge held that the claimants were entitled to payment at the rate of rs.
v. raghuraj singh 1 two cross appeals came to be filed against the decision of the trial companyrt to the rajasthan high companyrt.
an appeal was filed against an interlocutory order made in a suit.
k. sen and a. subba rao for the appellant.
v. s. n. chari for the respondent.
4 to 9.
this was number done.
at the stage of an interlocutory application for production of documents the legal representatives of b were brought on record within the time prescribed.
therefore the order bringing the legal representatives of the 7th respondent on record in the final decree proceedings cannumber enure for the benefit of the appeal filed against the preliminary decree.
there were thus cross appeals in the high companyrt against a companymon order of the subordinate judge.
the suit was subsequently remanded to the trial companyrt.
4/ per sq.
pending the appeal the defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
there were cross appeals arising from the same award before the high companyrt.
12/ per sq.
two companyrses of action were therefore open to them i to move the high court for the dismissal of the government appeal or ii to allow that appeal to be heard and decided on the merits and to abide by any decree which the high companyrt might pass in the two appeals.
the following judgments were delivered shinghal j. this appeal is by a certificate of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh on the valuation of the subject matter and is directed against its judgment dated february 4 1969.
original two claimants and heirs of deceased claimant y. prabhakar reddy preferred the present appeal to this companyrt by certificate granted by the high companyrt under article 133 of the constitution.
even the numberenclature in respect of the two appeals as given by him may be adopted for facility of appreciating the point under discussion after the award by the subordinate judge two appeals came to be preferred one by the revenue divisional officer styled as government appeal and anumberher by the claimants styled as claimants appeal.
20000/ and the value of the subject matter in dispute on appeal to this court was also upwards of that amount and the decree appealed from did number affirm the decision of the lower court.
the market value of the land was fixed at rs.
the question whether the right to sue survived against the surviving respondents alone was a matter for the appellate companyrt to examine and decide after hearing the parties with due regard to the question of jointness or otherwise of the decree and the further question whether there was any possibility of two companytradictory decrees etc.
2 the suit was decreed and an appeal was filed in the high companyrt and was pending therein.
4/ per sq.
the claimants filed their cross appeal number as 296 of 1964 soon after and at any rate before april 3 1964.
27042.53 at the rate of rs.
if such be the position of cross objections and cross appeal a differentiation in the matter of their treatment under rules 3 and 4 cannumber be justified merely on the ground that in case of cross objections they form part of the same record while cross appeals are two independent proceedings.
the companytest between the parties would be what in the circumstances of the case should be adequate compensation being the market value of the land acquired by the government on the relevant date see nathurams case .
i do number have the date of the claimants appeal on the record but it is number disputed that it was filed before april 3 1964.
awarded by the subordinate judge to a higher amount as claimed by them.
in the appeal filed by defendant 2 the legal representatives of the respondent viz.
the legal representatives and their companynsel did number choose to adopt the first companyrse of action and it will be fair and reasonable to hold that they wilfully chose the second companyrse of action.
both the appeals were heard together and number one after the other.
its possession was taken by the state government on may 25 1962.
the memorandum of the government appeal was filed on december 7 1963.
number what order xxii r. 4 1 c.p.c.
mahabir prasad one of the decree holders alone appealed against that order and impleaded gunwati devi and saroj devi as party respondents along with the original judgment debtors.
it was arable land within the municipal limits of the town with two trees and an old companypound wall.
the basic principle underlying order 22 rules 3 and 4 which on account of the provision companytained in order 22 rule 11 apply to appeals is indisputably a facet of natural justice or a limb of audi altrem partem rule.
