Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : UP Act No.13 Of 1972-Section (2)(1)(bbb)-Waqf Property Not Recorded In The Municipal Record
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Mohd. Sabir (Since Deceased) & Others Vs. Mohd. Irshad & Others On 27/01/2003 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : WRIT - A NO. 1549 OF 2003
CORAM : Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 48

Second Appeal No. 1518 Of 1984
Kaddi Lal And Others..................Defendant-appellants
Versus
Lok Pal Sharma And Others...........Plaintiff-respondents.
*****
Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.

Pursuant To The Order Dated 16-1-2006, The Case Is Listed Today, Peremptorily.
Case Has Been Taken Up In The Revised List.
Sri Anshu Chaudhary, Learned Counsel For The Plaintiff-respondent No.1 Is Present. However, Learned Counsel For The Defendants-appellants Is Not Present.
It Appears That Civil Misc. Application No. 1342 Of 1990 (Dated 2nd March, 1990) Was Filed Consequent To The Death Of Kaddi Lal (defendant-appellant No.1) On 5-12-1989.
It Was, Inter-alia, Prayed In The Aforesaid Application That The Name Of The Said Kaddi Lal Be Struck Off From The Array Of Parties In The Second Appeal, And In His Place, The Name Of His Widow Smt. Jagdevi Be Substituted As The Heir And Legal Representative Of The Said Kaddi Lal.
An Affidavit, Sworn By Chunni Lal (defendant-appellant No.2) On 28th February 1990, Was Filed In Support Of The Aforesaid Application.
It Further Appears That By The Order Dated 2nd March 1990, Notice Was Directed To Be Issued On The Aforesaid Application Dated 2nd March, 1990.
Office Report Dated 25-11-2005 / 1-12-2005 Shows That Requisite Steps Were Not Taken On Behalf Of The Applicants In The Aforesaid Application Dated 2nd March, 1990 For Issuance Of Notice Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 2nd March, 1990.
It Is, However, Noted In The Said Office Report That Sri Anshu Chaudhary Is Appearing For The Plaintiff-respondent No.1.
It Further Appears That Civil Misc. Abatement Application No. 50152 Of 2004 Has Been Filed On Behalf Of The Plaintiff-respondent No.1.
Copy Of The Said Application Was Served In The Office Of Sri K.K.S. Chauhan, Learned Counsel For The Defendants-appellants On 17th March, 2004. The Said Abatement Application Is Supported By An Affidavit Of Om Prakash, Son Of The Plaintiff-respondent No.1, Sworn On 16th March, 2004.
In Paragraph 5 Of The Said Affidavit Of Om Prakash, It Is, Inter-alia, Stated That The Said Smt. Jagdevi, Who Was Sought To Be Substituted In Place Of Kaddi Lal (defendant-appellant No.1), Expired Sometime In 1996.
It Is, Inter-alia, Further Stated In Paragraph 5 Of The Said Affidavit Of Om Prakash That No Application Has Been Moved To Bring On Record The Heirs And Legal Representatives Of The Said Smt. Jagdevi.
It Is, Inter-alia, Stated In Paragraph 2 Of The Said Affidavit Of Om Prakash That Chunni Lal (defendant-appellant No.2) Died In The Year 1995, But Till Date, No Substitution Application Has Been Filed To Bring On Record His Heirs And Legal Representatives.
It Is, Inter-alia, Stated In Paragraph 3 Of The Said Affidavit Of Om Prakash That Yad Ram (defendant-appellant No.3) Died Sometime In January 2000, But Till Date, No Substitution Application Has Been Filed To Bring On Record His Heirs And Legal Representatives.
It Is, Inter-alia, Stated In Paragraph 4 Of The Said Affidavit Of Om Prakash That Ram Swaroop (defendant-appellant No. 4) Died In September, 1997, But No Substitution Application Has Been Moved To Bring On Record His Heirs And Legal Representatives.
It Is, Inter-alia, Stated In Paragraph 6 Of The Said Affidavit Of Om Prakash That Bhagwan (proforma-respondent No.2) And Daleep (proforma-respondent No.3) Also Died In July, 2001 And In November, 2003, Respectively, But Till Date, No Substitution Application Has Been Moved To Bring On Record The Heirs And Legal Representatives Of The Said Proforma-respondent Nos.2 And 3, Respectively.
It Is, Inter-alia, Stated In Paragraphs 7 And 8 Of The Said Affidavit Of Om Prakash That In The Circumstances, The Second Appeal Has Abated, And Is Liable To Be Dismissed, As Such.
As Noted Above, Copy Of The Aforesaid Abatement Application Was Served In The Office Of Sri K.K. S. Chauhan, Learned Counsel For The Defendants-appellants. However, No Reply Has Been Filed On Behalf Of The Defendants-appellants Controverting The Averments Made In The Aforesaid Affidavit Of Om Prakash Filed In Support Of The Aforesaid Abatement Application.
In The Circumstances, There Is No Reason To Doubt The Correctness Of The Averments Made In The Said Affidavit Of Om Prakash Filed In Support Of The Aforesaid Abatement Application.
From The Above Narration Of Facts, It Is Evident That Kaddi Lal (defendant-appellant No.1) Expired On 5-12-1989, And Thereupon, The Aforementioned Substitution Application Dated 2-3-1990 Was Filed For Bringing On Record Smt. Jagdevi, Widow Of The Said Kaddi Lal (defendant-appellant No.1). However, In View Of The Averments Made In The Aforesaid Affidavit Of The Said Om Prakash Filed In Support Of The Aforesaid Abatement Application, It Is Evident That The Said Smt. Jagdevi Also Died Sometime In The Year 1996. No Substitution Application Appears To Have Been Filed For Bringing On Record The Heirs And Legal Representatives Of The Said Smt. Jagdevi.
From The Averments Made In The Aforesaid Affidavit Of Om Prakash, Filed In Support Of The Abatement Application, It Is Further Evident That Chunni Lal (defendant-appellant No.2), Yad Ram (defendant-appellant No.3) And Ram Swaroop (defendant-appellant No.4) Have Also Died Several Years Back. However, No Substitution Application Appears To Have Been Filed For Bringing On Record The Heirs And Legal Representatives Of The Said Chunni Lal (defendant-appellant No.2), Yad Ram (defendant-appellant No.3) And Ram Swaroop (defendant-appellant No.4), Respectively.
It Is Further Evident That Bhagwan (proforma-respondent No.2) And Daleep (proforma-respondent No.3) Have Also Died In July, 2001 And In November 2003, Respectively. However, No Substitution Application Appears To Have Been Filed For Bringing On Record The Heirs And Legal Representatives Of The Said Bhagwan (proforma-respondent No.2) And Daleep (proforma-respondent No.3), Respectively.
As No Steps For Bringing On Record The Respective Heirs And Legal Representatives Of The Said Smt. Jagdevi (widow Of The Said Kaddi Lal), The Said Chunni Lal (defendant-appellant No.2), The Said Yad Ram (defendant-appellant No.3) And The Said Ram Swaroop (defendant-appellant No.4), Have Been Taken, It Is Evident That The Second Appeal Has Stood Abated.
Accordingly, The Second Appeal Stands Dismissed, As Having Abated.

Go to Navigation