PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

                                                   Punjab State

                                                         Vs

                                               Sardar Atma Singh

                                       (D Mahajan, C.J. P.C Pandit, J.)

                                                   24.05.1962

                                                  JUDGMENT

P.C. Pandit, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the award given by the learned District Judge,
Patiala, on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made by the Collector at the
instance of Atma Singh, whose land measuring 43 bighas 11 1/2 biswas comprised in khasra
Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 549/5 in village Lehal had been acquired by the Pepsu Government for
construction, of a Multi-purpose Higher Secondary School. Compensation at the rate of Rs. 2/-
per square yard had been awarded by the Collector and the learned District Judge had enhanced
it to Rs. 3/-per square yard for khasra Nos. 27, 28 and 29 and Rs. 3/4/- per square yard for khasra
No. 549/5. Atma Singh was claiming Rs. 4/8/- per square yard for khasra Nos. 27, 28 and 29 and
Rs. 5/- per square yard for Khasra No. 549/5.

2. The State in this appeal claimed that the compensation allowed by the learned District Judge
should be reduced to Rs. 2/- per square yard for the entire land, as given by the Collector, while
Atma Singh in his cross, appeal (Regular First Appeal No. 280 of 1957) has claimed Rs. 4/- per
square yard for khasra Nos. 27, 28 and 29 and Rs. 4/6/- per square yard for khasra No. 549/5.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that this
appeal has abated, because the respondent, Atma Singh, died on 8-2-1959 and no application for
bringing his legal representative on the record has been filed up-till today. Learned counsel for
the State submitted that since the legal representative of Atma Singh had been brought on the
record in the cross-appeal filed by him (Regular First Appeal No. 280 of 1957), this appeal could
not abate. For this us placed his reliance on a Privy Council decision in Brij Indar Singh v.
Kanshi Ram1, wherein it was held--

        "The introduction of a plaintiff or a defendant for one stage of a suit is an introduction for
        all stages, even if it be made on an appeal from a mere interlocutory.order."
This decision was considered in Shankaranaraina Saralaya v. Laxmi Hengsu, AIR 1931 Mad
277, where the learned Judge observed as under:

        "There remains the decision of the Privy Council reported in ILR 45 Cal 94 : (AIR 1917
        PC 156). In that case, when an order on an interlocutory application passed during the
        course of a suit was made the subject of an appeal or revision in the appellate Court and
        when the legal representative of the original plaintiff was brought on record in the
        appellate Court as the death of the plaintiff occurred during the pendency of the matter
        before, the appellate Court, it was held that when the suit had to be tried again by the first
        Court after the disposal of that appeal, no fresh application, to bring in the legal
        representatives of the deceased plaintiff was necessary. Their Lordships have held that the
        introduction of a plaintiff or a defendant for one stage of a suit is an introduction for all
        stages. When the subject-matter of the interlocutory application was pending in the
        appellate Court, it was deemed to be one stage of the suit and, therefore, there was no
        need to put in a fresh application at a further stage of the suit when it came on for trial
        before the first Court. Can it be said in the present case that what war done in one appeal
        could enure for the benefit of another appeal unless the latter appeal can be deemed to be
        a continuation or a further stage of the appeal in which the legal representatives were
        brought on record? I am constrained to say that it is difficult to extend the principle of the
        decision of the Privy Council to the facts of this case."

After discussing the various authorities, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that--

        "Where two appeals are independently filed and arise out of the same suit and where one
        is filed by the plaintiff in the original suit and the other by the defendant and where the
        appeal by, the defendant-appellant has abated as he has not added the legal, representative
        of the deceased respondent in time, the defendant-appellant cannot claim the benefit of
        the fact that the legal representative of the deceased appellant in the appeal filed by the
        plaintiff-

appellant has been added within time, and, therefore, say
that it should be taken that those legal representatives
have also been added in place of the deceased respondent
in his appeal. The analogy of an appeal and memorandum
of cross-objections in the same appeal does not, held good. In the present case and hence the
abatement cannot be
set aside."

This appeal, consequently, abates and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to
costs.
D. K. Mahajan, J.
4. I agree.