Civil Procedure Code - Order 8 - Rule 10 – Claim of compensation - Possession of her undivided share in suit property - Whether Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC mandates trial court to decree the suit for non-filing of written statement - Whether judgment of the first appellate court is vitiated for reversing the findings of trial court without assigning reasons - Whether Appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff abated in its entirety for not bringing on record the legal representatives of original deceased Defendant nos. 4,8 and 9 who died during pendency of first Appeal - Appellants herein have challenged the judgment and order whereby the learned District Judge- allowed the Regular Civil Appeal set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Vita and thereby decreed the Regular Civil Suit filed by the Respondent No.1 - Dispute is in respect of the land bearing and house property bearing - Said property is referred to as the suit property - Respondent no. 1, the plaintiff in the suit claimed that suit property is an ancestral joint family property originally owned by one - Said died living behind two sons - Respondent No.2 - is the first wife - It is averred that the respondent No.2 being unable to bear children, consented to the second marriage – Accordingly entered into a second marriage with Respondent No.3 while his first wife was alive - Respondent No.1 claims to be the daughter and his second wife - Respondent no. 1 claims that after death name of Respondent No.2 was recorded in the survey records as a joint family manager - Taking advantage of this entry Respondent No.2 sold the suit property - Respondent no. 2 sold Gut to the Appellant No.2 and the house property – Held, Law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that as to whether non-substitution of LRs of the defendants/respondents would abate the appeal in toto or only qua the deceased defendants/respondents depend upon the facts and circumstances of an individual case - Where each one of the parties has an independent and distinct right of his own not inter-dependent upon one or the other, nor the parties have conflicting interests inter se appeal may abate only qua the deceased respondent – However in case there is a possibility that the Court may pass a decree contradictory to the decree in favor of deceased party appeal would abate in toto for the simple reason that the appeal is a continuity of suit and the law does not permit two contradictory decrees on the same subject matter in the same suit – Thus whether the judgment/decree passed in the proceedings vis-à-vis remaining parties would suffer the vice of being a contradictory or inconsistent decree is the relevant test - In instant case Respondent No.1 has challenged the validity of the sale deeds executed by the Respondent No.2 in favor of the Defendant Nos.4,5 and 8 and sought declaration that the said sale deeds are not binding on her - As a consequential relief the Respondent No.1 has sought partition and separate possession of her undivided share - Nature of the pleadings and the prayers indicate that the Respondent could not have brought the suit only against the other Defendants - Deceased Defendants were necessary parties to the suit as the relief sought by the Plaintiff could not have been granted in the absence of the deceased Defendants - Having failed to substitute legal representatives or seek exemption under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of CPC the relief could not have continued with the suit only against the other Defendants - Thus upon considering the pleadings and the prayers and considering the principles in there can be no escape from the conclusion that the appeal abates in its entirety - First appellate court not being aware of the death of these defendants and consequent abatement heard and decided the appeal against persons who were dead - Needless to state that a judgment passed against a dead person is nullity and inoperative - Under the circumstances and in view of discussion supra without going into the merits of the case first appeal needs to be remanded to the District court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law - Appeal is allowed