MAULA BAKHSH ETC. vs Mst. BUSHRA KHATOON ETC.S
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a Letters Patent Bench, which had set aside the transfer of disputed property in favour of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Maula Bakhsh, due to unsigned C. H. Forms. The core legal questions involve whether the absence of a signature or thumb-mark on a C. H. Form is a curable defect under paragraph 7 of Scheme No. I, and whether the Letters Patent Appeal had abated due to the delayed substitution of legal representatives following the death of Maula Bakhsh. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the curability of the defect and the abatement of the appeal require formal consideration. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues further.
- Whether the absence of a signature or thumb-mark on a C. H. Form is a curable defect under paragraph 7 of Scheme No. I?
- Whether a Letters Patent Appeal abates if an application to implead legal representatives is filed beyond the prescribed period without showing sufficient cause?
- Paragraph 7 of Scheme No. I
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The property in dispute had been transferred in favour of Maula Bakhsh, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, but in revision brought by Bushara Khatoon and Hakim Mehboob A.I, the predecessors-in-interest of the present contesting respondents, the transfer was cancelled for the reason that the relevant C. H. Forms filed by Maul Bakhsh did not bear his signature or thumb-mark and that "he has absolutely no knowledge of the C. H. Forms which are attributed to him." He was, therefore, held not entitled to any part of the property. In the writ petition, which Maula Bakhsh filed to challenge the order, the learned Judge came to the view that the defect in form was curable and that the procedure laid down in para. 7 of Scheme No. I should have been followed. He, therefore, quashed the revisional order and upheld the transfer of the property in favour of Maula Bakhsh. Another writ petition brought by the respondent was, for the same reason, dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondents, however succeeded and, in consequence, the Settlement authorities were directed to transfer the property in favour of the respondents. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defect in the C. H. Form Maula Bakhsh was curable under para. 7 of the Scheme No. I as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Another point raised is of abate--ment of the Letters Patent Appeal. In this connection, he points out that Maula Bakhsh had died on 18-1-1967 during pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal but the application to implead his legal representatives had been filed on 20-7-1967. He, therefore, contends that the Letters Patent Appeal had abated and the statement in the absence of sufficient cause having been shown could not be set aside. The contentions raised require consideration. We accordingly grant leave to appeal, Security Rs. 2,500,