1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.484 of 2008 Date of Decision : 21.05.2025 Churamani and others …… Appellant Versus Madhu Devi ……Respondent. _________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate. For the respondent : Sole respondent is stated to have expired. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The suit, in the case at hand, was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent, i.e., Madnu Devi. Madnu Devi claimed herself to be the widow of late Atma Ram. Nandi Devi, the sole appellant, i.e., predecessor-in- interest of the present appellant was the daughter of Atma Ram. In the suit filed by Madnu Devi (predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent), challenge was laid to a mutation bearing No.114 dated 29.12.2004, whereby, the suit land had been mutated in the name of Nandi Devi (predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant). The suit so filed was dismissed. The appeal preferred thereof 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 by Madnu Devi (predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent) was allowed. Madnu was held to be legally wedded wife of Atma Ram. 2. In view of the same, Madnu Devi, i.e., plaintiff/ predecessor-in- interest of the present respondent) was held entitled to inherit the property of deceased Atma Ram alongwith Nandi Devi, i.e., defendant/ predecessor-in- interest of the present appellant. 3. During the pendency of the present appeal, Nandi Devi (appellant) died. As a consequence whereof, vide order dated 27.08.2014, her legal heirs were brought on record. Besides the aforesaid, during the pendency of the present appeal, sole respondent, i.e., Madnu Devi also died. Her legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 21.06.2024. The legal heirs of both the deceased appellant and respondent before the Court are the same individuals. Since legal heirs brought on record have a right qua the property of the sole respondent/plaintiff, i.e. Madnu Devi, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings returned by the first appellate Court, whereby deceased respondent/plaintiff, i.e., Madnu Devi has been held to be entitled to inherit the property of deceased Atma Ram. 4. In view thereof, present appeal is dismissed as not pressed, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Bipin Chander Negi) May 21, 2025 (KS) Judge