Key Points: - The appeal abates as a whole where the right to appeal did not survive against surviving respondents due to joint decree, and substitution of the deceased defendant’s legal representatives was not properly made (Order 22, Rule 4, CPC) (!) (!) . - Substitution of Mohanlal’s legal representatives was withdrawn, leading to absence of properly on-record heirs, causing abatement and potential inconsistent decrees if only surviving respondents are allowed (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Supreme Court observations cited that if a legally represented heir is already on record in another capacity, abatement may not occur, but those remarks were distinguishable from the case facts and not controlling here (!) (!) (!) . - The Court held that the appeal abated as a whole and was dismissed without costs due to the risk of two contradictory decrees in respect of the same subject-matter (!) (!) (!) . - Cross-objection regarding costs of the Courts below was dismissed without any order as to costs (!) .

How to determine abatement of an appeal when a party dies and legal representatives are not properly substituted under Order 22, Rule 4, CPC?

How to assess whether an appeal can proceed when there is a joint decree affecting multiple parties and substitution of deceased defendants’ legal representatives is incomplete?

What are the consequences of allowing an appeal against surviving respondents only when other heirs of a deceased respondent exist, in terms of possible contradictory decrees and abatement?