Karam Kaur vs Jalandhar Imp.Trust & Ors

3. The case of the applicant, wife of original plaintiff – Ramesh Chander is that one Nasib Chand father of Ramesh Chander and respondent Nos.3 to 5 and husband of respondent No.2 was the owner of land measuring 28 Kanals 5 marlas situated at Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar, which was acquired by the respondent - Jalandhar Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the “Trust”) for development of scheme known as “13.37 acres scheme”. Nasib Chand died on 8th May, 1987 leaving behind Ramesh Chander-original plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 5 as his heirs. The original plaintiff- Ramesh Chander made many requests to the respondent-Trust for allotting him a plot in lieu of the acquired land. Further case of the appellant is that the respondent-Trust ultimately allotted the disputed plot in a scheme known as “55 acres development scheme” to him. Thereafter, Ramesh Chander requested the respondent-Trust to accept instalment of Rs. 10,000/- and deliver vacant possession of the plot but to no effect. He served notice on the Trust also for admitting his claim and to hand over his possession of the allotted plot to him, but to no avail.

5. The defendant-respondent No.1 appeared and filed a written statement. The suit was decreed by Sub-Judge by judgment and decree on 10th June, 1988. Being aggrieved, the defendant-respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court.

6. After remand, a fresh written statement was filed by the Trust, in which the Trust did not deny the factum that the plaintiff was a Local Displaced Person but disputed legality of allotment regarding Plot No.456 in 55 acre scheme on the ground that the Chairman had no right to allot any plot, and Plot No.456 was wrongly allotted. The Trial Court on hearing the parties decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff-Ramesh Chander and against the respondent-Trust holding as under:

14. Admittedly, Ramesh Chander – the original plaintiff, appellant before the Second Appellate Court, died on 14th December, 2003; the appellant is the widow of Ramesh Chander and she had knowledge of the pendency of the second appeal. Her plea that she was told by her husband that counsel would inform about the hearing of the application, cannot be a ground to entertain the application for condonation of delay of more than seven years for preferring the petition for substitution. A petition for substitution was filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Second Appellate Court. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had the knowledge of the death of Ramesh Chander and, therefore, they filed petition for substitution vide CM No.4841- C/2010. However, they withdrew the aforesaid application for substitution which was followed by petition for substitution petition filed by the appellant-Karam Kaur. In the petition for substitution filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, it was not stated that vide deed of family settlement dated 21st January, 2010 executed between the LRs of Nasib Chand (including respondent Nos.2 to 5 to the appeal) and other legal heirs of Ramesh Chander the right to sue survived only on the appellant-Karam Kaur. Apart from the fact that the aforesaid family settlement was not brought on record by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Second Appellate Court while the petition for substitution filed, so called family settlement dated 21st January, 2010 cannot be relied upon to exclude the other legal heirs who had a right to be substituted due to the death of the original plaintiff- Ramesh Chander.

9. The application for bringing on record the LRs of the original plaintiff-appellant before the Second Appellate Court at the behest of respondent Nos.2 and 3, having withdrawn was dismissed as withdrawn. Since the legal representatives of the original plaintiff-appellant in R.S.A.No.1908 of 1995 had chosen not to come forward to pursue the appeal, the second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

15. We find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.