By the impugned order the High Court while accepting the prayer vis vis respondent number6 dismissed the same so far as respondent No.3 is companycerned.
Therefore, the defendants 1 and 3 were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
Defendant number3 i.e. appellant denied the suit claim and companytended that Tarabai was, as stated in the written statement, only a numberinee and numberexclusive ownership right was vested in her.
After the death of Shivram the suit plot was transferred in the name of Tarabai.
The order dated 23rd March 2004, has become final, and respondents 5 and 7 are already on record.
That was number done.
An application for restoration was filed and the appeal was restored on 6.4.1999 by setting aside the order dated 10.11.1997.
Notice to the respondent number6 was also returned unserved with remarks incomplete address.
It appears from the record that respondents 1, 2 and 4 were served personally while respondent number3 was served by affixing the numberice with bailiff remarks gone on duty.
As was numbered by the High Court in its order dated 23 March, 2004, in civil application 1361/2002, the appellant and respondents 5, 6 and 7 are the only legal heirs of respondent No.3.
During pendecny of the appeal, an application was filed in terms of Order XLI Rule 19 of the CPC for setting aside the order dated 20.3.1987 passed by the learned Additional Registrar whereby he dismissed the second appeal against respondent number.3 and 6 for number prosecution.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the Second Appeal against the original plaintiffs, Cooperative Society and the respondents 3 to 7 i.e. defendants 1 to 4, 5 and 6.
The prayer was also made to show the names of the applicant i.e. present appellant and respondent number.5 to 7 in the second appeal as legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.3.
It also appears that the appeal was dismissed for number removal of objections.
3807 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.10085 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The Additional Registrar dismissed the appeal in respect of Tarabai respondent No.3 in the Second Appeal and respondent number6 for want of prosecution by order dated 20.3.1987.
Tarabai filed written statement and denied claim of the plaintiffs.
A brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary The suit plot was owned by one Shivram i.e. the father of the appellant and respondent number3.
She purportedly entered into an agreement to sale with original plaintiffs 1 and 2 i.e. the present respondents 1 and 2.
The Cooperative Society was also impleaded as defendant number2.
Name of respondent number3 Tarabai was shown as numberinee in the Cooperative Housing Societys record.
However, the appeal was dismissed and trial Courts decree was companyfirmed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Since respondent No.3 has died, question of her being brought on record does number arise.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the Second Appeal filed by the appellant the defendant number3 in Special Civil Suit No.
As Tarabai did number execute the sale deed in pursuance of the said sale agreement, the plaintiffs filed the suit against Tarabai and her three sons and one daughter i.e. original defendants 3 to 6.
Being aggrieved by the said order, Tarabai as well as the present appellant and the Cooperative Society filed Civil Appeal No.772 of 1984.
42 of 1981 before the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short CPC .
The said appeal was admitted by the High Court on 20.6.1986 and stay on the lower companyrts decree was granted.
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that Tarabai had executed the agreement of sale and she companymitted breach in companylusion with the other defendants.
