( 1 ) IN this appeal, Daulat Ram, respondent No. 1, plaintiff in the suit, is stated to have died on 7th January, 1963 and his legal representatives have not been impleaded so far.

( 2 ) IT is conceded on behalf of the appellant that the appeal as against the deceased must be held to have abated. An attempt, has however, been made to persuade us to hold that as regards the other respondents, the appeal is alive and can be disposed of on merits. Mr. D. K. Kapur has very strongly argued that even though the finding of the Court below that the plaintiff was a mortgagee from Harnam Das defendent No. 2 would be binding on all the parties, nevertheless if he is permitted to show that the mortgagor of the plaintiff is Jagir Chand, defendant No. 3 and not defendant No. 2, that decree would not in any way conflict with the impugned decree and both the decrees can co-exist and remain operative. In support of his contention, he has relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the State o/ Punjab v. Nathu Ram but the ratio of that decision does not seem to us to help him. On the contrary, the rule of law approved by it goes against the appellant. The Code of Civil Procedure does