SH. BAKSHISH SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusARJAN SINGH AND ORS.

                         SH. BAKSHISH SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.                               A
                                               v.
                                 ARJAN SINGH AND ORS.

                                      MARCH 12, 1996

                   [K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]                               B

                Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 22 Rule 4.

                 Appeal-Abatement of-Partnership-Suit filed by one partller for dis-
          solution of partnership and rendition of accounts-Dismissal by Trial           C_
          Court-Dismissal upheld by First Appellate Court-Second appeal-Death of
          two partners during pendency of second appeaHegal representatives of
          deceased part~ers not brought on record-High Court dismissed the second
          appeal as having abated against all the respondents including those who have
          subsequently purchased the interest of the partllers-Appeal-Held when the      D
          decree is singgle and indivisible, there cannot be inconsistent decrees as
          against the deceased respondents and the contesting surviving respon-
_k        dents-As two respondent-partners died pending second appeal, there cannbt
 ..__ ~   be any inconsistent decree as against the dead persons and against whom die
          decree dismissing the suit had become final and other contesting respondents
          whose rights are to be adjudicated in the second appeal-17ie High Court has    E
          not committed any effor of law-17ie appeal also stand abated as against all
          the respondents.

                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1032A of
          ~.                                                                             F
               From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.78 of the Punjab &
          Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 477 of 1968.

                Mrs. Manjeet Chawla and (V.K. Verma), (NP) for the Appellants.
                                                                                         G
                Prem Malhotra and Piyush for the Respondents.

                The following Order of the Court was delivered :

                This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned
          single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made in Second               H
                                            295
    296                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1996] 3 S.C.R.

A Appeal No. 477/68 on September 12, 1978.
           The admitted facts are that one Mathra Singh, Plaintiff No. 1 and
    defendant Nos. 1 to 13 were partners of the factory known as Modern Ice
    Factory at Gurdaspur. A suit was filed for dissolution of partnership and
B   rendition of accounts. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Appeal also was
    dismissed. While the second appeal was pending, it is not in dispute that
    two of the partners died. Their legal representatives were not brought on
    record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal as
    having abated as against all the respondents. Thus, this appeal by special
    leave.
c
        It is pointed out in the report of the Registry that respondent Nos.
  8 and 14{i), pending this appeal, have also died and no steps have been
  taken to bring the legal representatives on record. It is contended by Smt.
  Manjeet Chawla, learned counsel for the appellant that the original
D partners are respondent Nos. 2, 14 and 15. As against them, the appeal has
  not been abated and the High Court was wrong in its conclusion that the.
  appeal stands abated as against other pers0ns who have subsequently
  purchased the interest of they partners. It is seen that even pending appeal
  the 14th respondent, the original partner also died and his legal repre-
E sentatives were brought on record and that respondent 14(i) also died. 8th
  respondent also died pending appeal.

          It is well settled law that when the decree is single and indivisible,
    there cannot be inconsistent decrees as against the deceased respondents
    and the contesting surviving respondents. It is seen that two respondent-
F   partners died pending second appeal. Therefore, there cannot be any
    inconsistent decree as against the dead persons and against whom the
    decree dismissing the suit had become final and other contesting respon-
    dents whose rights are to be adjudicated in the second appeal.

G           It would, therefore, be clear that the High Court has not committed
     any error of law. Since the appeal has already got abated as against the
     deceased respondents, the Court cannot proceed further on merits. Equal-
     ly, the same situation is confirmed in this appeal also. Since respondent
     Nos. 8 and 14(i) had already died and their rights have become final; since
H    their legal representatives have not been brought on record and the appeal
                 BAKSHISH SINGH v. ARJAN SINGH                     297

stands abated as against them, it would be inconsistent if we go into the A
merits of the matter as against the contesting respondents in this appeal.
Unde.r these circumstances, this appeal also stands abated as against all
the respondents.

     The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.                       B

T.N.A.                                                Appeal dismissed.