Case: Dolai Molliko &amp; Ors Vs. Krushna Chandra Patnaik &amp; Ors

1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Orissa High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. A suit was brought by eleven plaintiffs (who are appellants before us including Dolai Molliko for a declaration that the plaintiffs were tenants with occupancy rights in the lands in dispute. The suit was resisted by the defendants who are now respondents. The Munsif dismissed the suit. Thereupon there was an appeal by the plaintiffs. During the pendency of that appeal, Dolai Molliko appellant died in March 1958. An application was made within time for bringing on record his heirs, and these heirs were two namely, the widow and a major son of the deceased. No objection was made to this application and consequently the widow and the son of the deceased were substituted on record as heirs. The Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and gave the declaration prayed for by the plaintiffs. Then followed a second appeal to the High Court by the defendant-respondents. When the appeal was pending in the High Court it was discovered that Dolai had left three other heirs, namely, a minor son, a married daughter and an unmarried daughter besides the widow and the major son who had been brought on record as his heirs. Consequently an objection was raised in the High Court on behalf of the present respondents that as all the heirs of the deceased Dolai had not been brought on record, the appeal before the Subordinate Judge had abated in toto. The High Court accepted this contention and held that as three heirs had been left out and as there could be no question of want of knowledge of the existence of these heirs on the part of the widow and the major son who had applied for being brought on record, the appeal abated as it was not disputed that in the present case the appeal would abate in toto. In consequence the appeal before the High Court was allowed holding that the appeal before the Subordinate Judge had abated and the judgment of the Munsif dismissing the suit was restored. Thereupon the appellants obtained special leave from this Court; and that is how the matter has come before us.

Court's reasoning:
It will be noticed that there is one difference between the present case and the two cases on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellants. This is not a case where a plaintiff or an appellant applies for bringing the heirs of the deceased defendant or respondent on the record, this is a case where one of the appellants died and his heirs have to be brought on record. In such a case there is no question of any diligent or bona fide enquiry for the deceased appellants heirs must be known to the heirs who applied for being brought on the record. Even so we are of opinion that unless there is fraud or collusion or there are other circumstances which indicate that there has not been a fair or real trial or that against the absent heir there was a special case which was not and could not be tried in the proceeding, there is no reason why the heirs who have applied for being brought on record should not be held to represent the entire estate including the interests of the heirs not brought on the record. This is not to say that where heirs of an appellant are to be brought on record all of them should not be brought on record and any of them should be deliberately left out. But if by oversight or on account of some doubt as to who are the heirs, any heir of a deceased appellant is left out that in itself would be no reason for holding that the entire estate of the deceased is not represented unless circumstances like fraud or collusion to which we have referred above exist5. In the present case there is no question of any fraud or collusion, nor is there anything to show that there had not been a fair or real trial, nor can it be said that against the absent heir there was a special case which was not and could not be tried in the proceeding in his absence. It may also be noticed that the respondents themselves did not object in the court of the Subordinate Judge that some of the heirs of deceased Dolai had been left out and the case proceeded there as if the estate of deceased Dolai was represented in full by the heirs brought on record. It was only in the High Court that it was discovered that Dolai had left three other heirs who had not been brought on the record. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the estate of Dolai was fully represented by the heirs who had been brought on the record in the Subordinate Judges court and that these heirs represented the absent heirs also who would be equal1y bound by the result, and there is no reason to hold that the appeal before the Subordinate Judge had abated on that ground11. We are of opinion that these cases have been correctly decided and even where the plaintiff or the appellant has died and all his heirs have not been brought on the record because of oversight or because of some doubt as to who are his heirs, the suit or the appeal, as the case may be, does not abate and the heirs brought on the record fully represent the estate unless there are circumstances like fraud or collusion to which we have already referred above.