JUDGMENTABDUL GHAFOOR, J.~ This appeal is directed against an order dated 29th December, 1987, passed by the Additional District Judge Bagh, whereby the appeal filed by Ghulam Din and other (respondents Nos. 1 to 3) against an order dated 2nd of June, 1979, passed by Sub Judge Rawalakot was allowed and the appeal filed by the appellants against the same order was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession of land measuring 22 kanale and 11 marlas comprising survey No. 662 situate in village Kuiyan Tehsil Rawalakot against the appellants on the basis of title which was resisted by the appellant- defendants on the ground that their father purchased the suit land through sale deed dated 8th of January, 1950 and they were also in adverse possession of it.
3. The appellants also filed a separate suit to seek declaration to the effect that they are owners of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 8th of January, 1950 and their adverse possession over it has also ripened into ownership, therefore, the respondent-defendants have no interest, whatsoever, into it. The improvements were also claimed by them. This suit was resisted by the respondents on the ground that they are, in fact, the owners of this land.
4. The trial Judge consolidated both the suits and after their trial, found that the appellants failed to prove that they were the vendees of it or their adverse possession over it had ripened into ownership. The claim with regard to the improvements,was also rejected. He granted a decree for possession of the land measuring 18 kanals and one maria in favour of the respondents but their suit with respect to rest of the land i.e. Four kanals and 10 marlas was dismissed because Fazal Din one of the co-owners in the suit land compromised with the appellants. He, therefore, granted a decree for land measuring four kanals and 10 marlas comprising survey No.662 with an house standing over it in favour of the appellants on the basis of a compromise dated 13th February 1963 whereby Fazal Din (defendant) son of Nawab Khan had accepted their ownership over it.
5. Both the parties went in appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge Bagh against the order dated 3rd June,1979 mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondents, dismissed the one filed by the appellants and granted a decree for possession of whole of survey No. 662 in favour of the respondents.
6. It was found by the learned Additional District Judge that the appellants did not implead the legal representative of one of the defendants, namely, Fazal Din who died during the pendency of the suit, thus the suit filed by the appellants has abated and the decree passed against said Fazal Din (the dead person) in favour of the appellant is a nullity, therefore, the appellants cannot claim any right on the basis of it and cannot resist the suit for possession filed by the respondents and this order of the learned additional District Judge Bagh is a subject matter of the present appeal.
7. The Counsel for the appellants prayed that the legal representatives of a person, party to the suit or appeal, who dies during the pendency of it, are required to be brought on the file, provided that person holds any interest in the property at dispute at the time of death. Here in this case, Fazal Din surrendered all his rights in favour of the appellants through compromise dated 13th February, 1963 and, therefore, he had no interest in the suit land thereafter, as such, there was no necessity of impleading his legal representatives in the suit or appeal.
8. To take up the point of validity of the decree passed on the basis of compromise dated 13th February, 1963, he argued that this decree has been formally passed after the death of Fazal Din yet Fazal Din confessed the judgment during his life time, therefore, it cannot be accepted to have been passed against a dead person, as such, it is not a nullity in the eye of law.
9. The Counsel for the respondents submitted that it was necessary for the appellants to implead the legal representatives of Fazal Din in the appeal, as was done by the respondents in their counter appeal, filed against the same order, as was required by Order 22 Rule 4, C.P.C, and the failure of the appellants to comply with the mandatory provisions of law, has caused abatement of their suit, thus the first appellate court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellants.
10. In this appeal, the following points are needed to be resolved:- i) When Fazal Din, defendant, through compromise dated 13th February, 1963, accepted the appellants'adverse possession over the suit land and consented to the grant of a decree in their favour, whether he remained a necessary party to the suit, being contested by the appellants with rest of the defendants to the extent of their share in the suit land and on his death, the appellants' failure to bring on record his legal representatives, entails abatement of the suit; andii) Whether the decree passed against Fazal Din, after his death on the basis of a consent given by him, will be a nullity and no rights will accrue to the appellants-decree-holders on the basis of it.
11. It is laid down in Order 22 Rule 4 CPC that where one of the two or more defendants dies and the right does not survive against the surviving defendant, alone, the Court, shall on application, cause the legal representatives of the defendant (deceased) to be made party and shall proceed with the suit and where within the time limited by law no application is made the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant.
12. This rule envisages that if there is a right at contest and the defendant (deceased) holds interest in that right, at the time of his death and he leaves behind a person represent to him, the plaintiff is bound to make an application to the Court to cause his legal representatives to be made party to the suit.
13. In the light of the provisions of Order 22, rule 4, CPC if the point at dispute, in the present case, is seen, the penalty of abatement proposed in this rule, cannot be imposed on the plaintiff- appellants for their failure to bring on record the legal representatives of Fazal Din because through a compromise dated 13th February, 1963 he surrendered all his rights in the suit land in favour of the appellants and thereafter, the appellants became his legal representatives for the purpose of this land at the time of his death, he held no right or inCiest in the suit land, therefore, when there remains no interest of Fazal Din in the suit land at contest, there arises no necessity to bring on record his legal representatives.
14. The legal view that a decree passed against a dead person is a nullity, is well reasoned. The decree means "formal expression of the right of the parties" and it is incumbent upon the Court to make thorough investigation with regard to the points at contest before it, before making formal expression touching that right. A point in dispute can properly be probed into only if the parties at dispute and interested in that point, are heard but when a person against whom a suit is filed in the Court, is dead and the Court holds the trial and passes a decree against the dead man it will be one sided trial and the object of administration of justice shall not be achieved.
15. Here, in this case, the situation is otherwise, and the decree passed against Fazal Din, cannot be held to be a nullity because this decree was passed, according to the settlement arrived at between Fazal Din and the appellants. At the time, the appellants filed a suit to seek declaration that they were in adverse possession over survey No. 662, Fazal Din was alive and during the course of the trial, he compromised with the appellants, accepted their rights over the suit land and made a statement in the court to endorse the settlement but the Court did not pass the decree as there were other defendants too, who were contesting the suit.
16. Order 23 Rulp 3, CPC lays down that if it is proved to the statisfaction of the Court that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by a lawful compromise, the Court shall cause the compromise be recorded and shall pass a decree in accordance with that.
17. Fazal Din the defendant filed a compromise deed dated 13th February, 1963 and accepted that the appellants were in adverse possession of the land comprising survey No. 662 thus he surrendered all his rights in the land in favour of the appellants, hence the rights of Fazal Din, divested from his the movement he accepted that the appellants were in adverse possession of the land and as a right once divested from one owner, cannot remain in the air till the Court concludes the trial or makes a formal declaration, therefore, it immediately invested in the appellants as was intended to be done. The appellants stepped into the shoes of Fazal Din on 13th February, 1963 and became the owner of survey No. 662 to the extent of the share of Fazal Din, therefore, the decree which was formally passed by the trial Court on 2nd June, 1979 on the basis of a compromise dated 13th February, 1963, cannot be held to be a nullity.
18. As found earlier, the mischief of abatement of the suit for the failure of the appellants to bring on record the legal representatives of Fazal Din, cannot be made applicable in this case and the decree passed by the lower Court with regard to the share of Fazal Din, cannot be held to be a nullity in the eye of law, therefore, accepting the appeeal, the order passed by the learned Addl.
District Judge Poonch at Bagh, is set aside and the decree passed by the trial Court, stands restored. The parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.