( 1 ) THE Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, srikakulam in A. S. No. 11 of 1997. The lower appellate court had reversed the judgment of the court of learned District Munsif, narasannapeta, in O. S. No. 31 of 1992.

( 2 ) THE appellants herein filed the suit against the respondent and his son for the relief of declaration that the wall in between them is common to both the parties and that the latter be restrained from making any constructions using the said wall as base, and from interfering with the right of the appellants to rest the vennupatti on the joint wall (the last part of the relief was claimed as one for mandatory injunction ). The 2nd defendant died during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the suit was treated as abated against him through an endorsement dated 19-1-1993. The trial court decreed the suit through its judgment dated 13-9-1996. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent herein filed the appeal. He canvassed several grounds touching on the merits as well as the one relating to the alleged abatement of the suit consequent on the death of his son. The lower appellate court rejected the contention of the respondent herein on merits and upheld the findings of the trial court. However, it allowed the appeal and set aside the decree on the ground that the suit abated on account of the death of the 2nd defendant. Hence the second Appeal.

( 3 ) SRI Badana Bhaskara Rao learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the deceased-2nd defendant was none other than the son of the respondent herein and that both of them were impleaded in the suit as the members of the joint family. He contends that the second defendant died issueless and his only legal representative was the respondent herein, who is his father. Learned counsel points out that the joint family can be represented by any one of the members and even otherwise once the respondent herein is the legal representative of the deceased-2nd defendant, and when no objection was raised by him during the pendency of the suit, the lower appellate court was not justified in reversing the decree of the trial court. He placed reliance upon certain judgments rendered by the Supreme court and other High Courts.

( 4 ) SRI M. Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submits that the cause of action in the suit was indivisible and in that view of the matter, death of one of the defendants would bring about abatement of the suit as a whole. He submits that, once the trial court took note of the death of the 2nd defendant and found that no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record, it ought to have treated the entire suit as abated and that this fatal defect was rectified by the lowerappellate court. He too relied upon certain judgments.

( 5 ) THE appellants filed the suit for the reliefs referred to above against two persons namely; the respondent herein and his son. A perusal of the plaint discloses that the relief was claimed against both the defendants as being members of the joint family and as persons interfering with the rights of the appellants and not as holders of independent rights or interest vis-a-vis the suit schedule property. It is a matter of record that the second defendant died issueless. Naturally, even if there are any other legal representatives for him, his father-the respondent herein happens to be one among them.

( 6 ) A perusal of Order 22 Rule 4 of the code of Civil Procedure discloses that the death of one of the defendants, ipso facto, does not result in abatement of the entire suit. Much would depend on the nature of reliefs claimed against them and the severability of the cause of action. Sub-rule (1) thereof, discloses that the abatement would result if only the right to sue survives vis-a-vis the dead person. Sub-rule (3) mandates that, where no steps are taken to bring the legal representatives on record, the suit shall abate a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document