The appeal abated due to the death of one appellant, as the decree was inseparable and rights were not independent.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. Present First Appeal stood abated qua appellant No.2 – owner of the offending vehicle.

3. Present First Appeal challenges the judgment and award passed by the learned MACT, Gandhinagar, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition observing that the claimants were entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,34,250/- jointly and severally from the appellants herein along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the claim petition till realization .

4. Learned advocate Mr. Hemant Shah for the appellant submits that the driver and owner of both the vehicles are different parties. He would further submit that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal for them are different and distinct. Though they were joined together in a single litigation, their rights are independent. Therefore, he would submit that despite the death of the owner of the vehicle, the driver could maintain the appeal individually and severally and therefore, the appeal is maintainable. Upon such submission, he prays to decide the appeal on its own merit.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Darji for the respondents raised contention of maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the appellants were sailing in the same boat. He would further submit that since the appellant No.2 has expired, appeal qua him stood abated. The decree passed against them were jointly and severally and therefore, now the decree i.e. judgment and award is inseparable. He would further submit that as far as appellant No.2, - owner of the offending vehicle is concerned, the impugned judgment and award became final as appeal against him is abated. It cannot be altered in a appeal filed by the appellant No.1, it is no separate and independent cause of action to prefer appeal. Under these circumstances, he would submit that the appeal would stand abated in toto.

6. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Darji has referred to and relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Goli Vijayalakshmi and others Vs. Yendru Sathiraju (Dead) by LR, (2019) 11 SCC 352 , Budh Ram and others Vs. Bansi and others , (2010) 11 SCC 476 and Badni by Lrs Vs. Siri Chanda by Lrs and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 1077 .

7. The constitution bench in case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra(Dead) by LRs and Others v. Pramod Gupta(Smt)(Dead) by LRs and Others reported in 2003(3) SCC 272 exposes the provisions of law in para 34 as under:-

“"34. In the light of the above discussion, we hold:-

(1) Wherever the plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are found to have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own and for the purpose of convenience or otherwise, joined together in a single litigation to vindicate their rights the decree passed by the Court thereon is to be viewed in substance as the combination of several decrees in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree. The same would be the position in the case of defendants or respondents having similar rights contesting the claims against them.

(2) Whenever different and distinct claims of more than one are sought to be vindicated in one single proceedings as the one now before us, under the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings and/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are clubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the Courts concerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should be treated as a mere combination of