Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. Pandrang Row, J., dismissed the second appeal, giving effect to an objection, in limine, that the decree from which it was filed, was superseded by a fresh decree that was passed subsequent to the filing of the appeal. The question to decide is whether there was in law a new decree passed, which had the effect of discharging the original decree. We regret to say we are constrained to differ from the learned Judges view. If the course of the proceedings be carefully followed, it will be seen that nothing was done, which could be said to have had the legal effect of vacating the decree, from which the second appeal was filed.

2. The facts relevant to the question at issue may be briefly stated. The plaintiff, alleging that he became the purchaser of the suit property, sued the defendants for possession. Their defence was that some amount was due to them, and the trial Court after over-ruling the plea, gave judgment for the plaintiff. It must be mentioned that the property, as was admitted, was held in two distinct shares; one by the first defendant and the other by his brother the second and the latters son the third. The first defendant alone appealed,