Important point
Where there are several appeals wherein issue involved is common and decesive in all, and one of the appellants dies whose legal representatives are not brought on record all the appeals would abate since dismissing one of the appeals alone as abated would result in conflicting decrees in case other appeals are allowed on merit.

Order

In all these appeals, the common question that arises for consid­eration is whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was right in dismissing the Regular Second Appeals as abated on account of the death of one of the appellants.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as under :-

The first respondent herein (since deceased), second respondent and the husband of the third respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Plaintiff-respondents’ for convenience) filed eight suits for possession of the suit land by way of redemption in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Palwal, District Gurgaon. The appellants contested the suits, contending inter alia, that the plaintiff-respondents were not the successors-in-interest of the deceased Durga Devi, to whom the suit land originally belonged. It was claimed by the plaintiff-respondents that their father, Charan Singh, was adopted by one Rattan Singh, who was, admittedly, entitled to succeed along with the appellants on the death of Durga Devi. The adoption was disputed by the contesting defen­dants (appellants herein) in the suits. However, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court held that the adoption was true and binding on the defendants. As a matter of fact, the trial Court decreed two suits out of eight suits and dismissed the other six suits. The reasons for dismissal need not detain us. Against the dismissal of six suits, the plaintiffs-respondents preferred six appeals before the District Judge, Gurgaon, and the learned District Judge allowed their appeals. Against the judg­ment of the learned District Judge, the aforesaid R.S.As. were preferred.

3. As pointed out earlier, the High Court dismissed the appeals on the ground that the legal representatives of one Shiv Lal, one of the appellants before it, was not brought on record and, therefore, the appeal filed by Shiv Lal stood abated. As a result of abatement of Shiv Lal’s appeal, according to the High Court, the other appeals also stood abated. Because of the common issue regarding the adoption of plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest, there cannot be two conflicting decrees. In other words, the adoption issue was common and decisive in all the appeals pending before the High Court and dismissing one appeal alone on the ground of abatement and allowing the other appeals to proceed on merits might end in conflicting decrees in case the other appeals are accepted on merits.

4. Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the appellants, sub­mitted that the High Court was not right in dismissing the con­nected appeals on the ground that the legal representatives of one of the deceased appellants in one R.S.A. were not brought on record. According to the learned counsel, the decision of the High Court was against the provision of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support thereof, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Balwant Singh & Anr. etc. v. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors.1.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respon­dents submitted that the High Court was right in holding that on account of a common issue in all the appeals the death of one of the appellants in one R.S.A. resulting in abatement of that appeal, will also result in abatement of other appeals. In sup­port of his contention, he placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram2 and Sri Chand & Ors. v. M/s. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand & Ors.3.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the decree was based on a common issue against the appel­lants in all the six R.S.As. and the failure to bring the legal representatives of one of the deceased appellants in one R.S.A. will result in abatement of other appeals. Otherwise, there will be conflicting decrees in the event of other R.S.As. being al­lowed on merits, which cannot be allowed.

7. We have noticed earlier that the common issue f