Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal as Abated Due to Non-Substitution of Legal Heirs of Deceased Appellant in Property Title Suit. Appeal Abates Entirely When Deceased Appellant's Interest is Inseparable from Co-Appellants, Rendering Inconsistent Decrees Impossible.

Civil appeal against judgment of High Court confirming trial court decree in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of immovable properties.

The appellants (defendants) sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and trial court which declared the plaintiff's title to suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and directed delivery of possession.

The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding title and possession of the suit properties.

The trial court decreed the suit in part on 12th October 1995, declaring title and ownership of the plaintiff to plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and directing delivery of possession, while dismissing the claim for 'C' schedule property. The High Court dismissed the appeal and cross-objections on 22nd November 2005, confirming the trial court's decree.

Whether the civil appeals have abated in toto due to the failure to bring on record the legal representatives of appellant no. 2 (defendant no. 2) within the prescribed time. Whether the remaining appellants (appellant nos. 1 and 3) can prosecute the appeals without resulting in inconsistent decrees.

Respondents/plaintiffs argued that the appeal abated in toto because the deceased appellant no. 2 had a joint and inseparable interest with the other appellants, and allowing the remaining appellants to proceed would lead to two inconsistent decrees. Appellants argued that appellant nos. 1 and 3 had distinct and separate rights in the suit properties, which were inter se divided, and the court had power under Order 41 Rule 4 CPC to do substantial justice.

Where a suit is filed against multiple defendants claiming co-ownership from a common ancestor, and one defendant dies and his legal representatives are not brought on record within limitation, the appeal abates as against that defendant. If the remaining defendants have joint and inseparable interest, the entire appeal abates to avoid inconsistent decrees. The power under Order 41 Rule 4 CPC cannot be exercised to allow the appeal to proceed if it would result in mutually contradictory decrees.

The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs is to permit the remaining appellants to prosecute the civil appeals and, in the event, they were to succeed, there would be two mutually inconsistent/contradictory decrees... The primary role of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Inasmuch as the abatement results in denial of hearing on the merits of the case, the provision of abatement has to be construed within the strict parameters of law.

Original Suit No. 175 of 1987 was filed by Yendru Sathiraju in the trial court for declaration of title and recovery of possession of schedule 'A', 'B', and 'C' properties. The trial court decreed the suit in part on 12th October 1995, granting relief for 'A' and 'B' properties but dismissing the claim for 'C' property. The defendants appealed to the High Court in Appeal No. 1146 of 1996, and the plaintiffs filed cross-objections. The High Court dismissed the appeal and cross-objections on 22nd November 2005. The defendants filed SLP(C) No. 9401 of 2006, and the plaintiffs filed SLP(C) No. 19919 of 2006. During the pendency, appellant no. 2 died on 21st February 2006. The Chamber Judge on 24th July 2009 declared the appeal abated as against appellant no. 2. Leave was granted and SLPs were converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 8109 and 8110 of 2010 on 6th September 2010. The Court dismissed applications for condonation of delay and substitution on 14th August 2018, leaving the issue of abatement for final hearing.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 22 Rule 4, Order 22 Rule 9, Order 41 Rule 4