http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI BAKSHISH SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ARJAN SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (3)   566        1996 SCALE  (3)49

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the learned  single Judge  of the  Punjab and  Haryana  High Court made  in Second  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 rendition  of accounts. The  trial   Court  dismissed  the  suit.  Appeal  also  was dismissed. While  he 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.      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 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 persons  who have subsequently purchased the  interest of the  partners. It  is seen  that even  pending appeal the 14th respondent,  the original  partner also  died  and  his legal representatives  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- partners died pending second appeal. Therefore, there cannot be any  inconsistent decree  as against the dead persons and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

against whom the decree dismissing the suit had become final and other  contesting respondents  whose rights  are  to  be adjudicated in the second appeal.      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.  Equally,  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 their  legal representatives  have  not been brought  on record  and the  appeal  stands  abated  as against them,  it would  be inconsistent  if we  go into the merits of  the matter  as against the contesting respondents in this  appeal. Under these circumstances, this appeal also stands abated as against all the respondents.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.