JUDGMENT:

1. Today when the matter listed under caption „For Orders‟, learned counsel appearing for both sides is present.

2. Heard Smt. Priyanvitha Popuri, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Rajan, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The material on record prima facie shows that the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff filed two (2) Memos before the Registry on 01.08.2024 and also on 20.08.2024, by informing to the learned counsel for the appellants by serving a copy of those Memos, that the appellant No.2 died on 22.02.2011, appellant No.3 died on 19.03.2012, appellant No.4 died on 18.06.2013 and the appellant No.9 died on 18.07.2015. Despite of receipt of notice, the learned counsel for the appellants has not taken any steps to bring the legal representatives on record. In the case on hand, the Decree passed by the trial Court is a Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale against which an appeal was preferred by all the defendants before this Court. The Decree passed by the trial Court is “Joint and Indivisible Decree”. It was brought to the notice of this Court that, the defendant No.1 filed written statement before the trial Court and the same has been adopted by the other defendants and the schedule property is also one item of the property which is undivided and unspecified share of the defendants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the case of “SIRAVRAPU APPA ROA & Ors. Vs. DOKALA APPA RA O”1. The Apex Court held as follows:-

“where there are more than one plaintiffs, the entire suit cannot be held to be abated on the death of one of the plaintiffs.”

5. In the case on hand, the plaintiff counsel filed two (2) Memos before the Registry by informing the death of four defendants/ appellants to the counsel

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 845

for defendants/ appellants, but the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants has not taken any steps to bring legal representatives of four appellants/ defendants on record. The learned counsel for the CHELADMA VENKATA RAM respondents placed a reliance on the case of “

RAO Vs. ENGU NARAYANA2 ” the full bench judgment of composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In the aforesaid case, the issue referred to the full bench was answered by the full bench of this Court in a negative held as follows:

“P.1 “Has the appellate Court power to proceed with the hearing of the appeal and to reverse and vary the decree in faovur of all the plaintiffs or defendants under Order 22 Rule 3 and Order 41, Rule 4 C.P.C. it all the plaintiffs or defendants appeal from the decree and one of them dies and no substitution is effected within time always assuming that the decree proceeds on a ground common to all the plaintiffs or defendants”

P.25. In our view, therefore, the reference must be answered in the negative, and it is accordingly so answered”.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri S. Rajan, has also placed reliance on another case of Constitution bench of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of “S AMARJIT SINGH KALRA VS. PRAMOD GUPTA: GULAB SUNDRI BAPNA ”3 held as follows:

“[21] It is not necessary to consider individually all the decisions rendered by Benches of two and three learned Judges, brought to our notice, wherein uniformly this Court has held- (a) In case of "joint and indivisible decree," "joint and inseverable or inseparable decree," the abatement of proceedings in relation to one or more of the appellant(s) or respondent(s) on account of omission or lapse and failure to bring on record his or their legal representatives in time would

2 1963 AIR(AP) 168

2003 (3) SCC 272 prove fatal to the entire appeal and require to be dismissed in toto, as otherwise inconsistent or contradictory decrees would result and proper reliefs could not be granted, conflicting with the one which had already become final with respect to the same subject-matter vis-a-vis the others; (b) the question as to whether the Court can deal with