The absence of legal heirs of deceased plaintiffs rendered the appeal abated, preventing the court from proceeding with the matter.

JUDGMENT

The appeal arises from the Judgment and decree in O.S. No 146 of 2000 on the files of Munsiff Court, Haripad as confirmed by the Additional District Court-1 Mavelikara in A.S. No.36 of 2006.

2. The suit was one for declaration and injunction. What was impugned in the suit is the decision of the appellant sangam to induct 77 persons who were not the members of the sangham.

3. After a full fledged trial the suit was decreed.

A declaratory decree was granted and defendants 1 and 2 were restrained from acting as the president and secretary of the sangam.

4. Aggrieved, the defendants, whose induction was found to be illegal, filed appeal. The first appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and affirmed the Judgment and decree. However, while doing so issued certain directions touching upon the administration of sangham and even going to the extent of appointing an administrator for conducting elections.

5. The sangam along with defendants 4 and 5 in the suit has thus come in appeal before this court.

6. On 12-4-2011, this court framed the following substantial question of law:-

“ When the Additional District Judge Mavellikkara upheld the decision of the Munsiff dismissing the suit, whether the first appellate court was justified in appointing an administrator as no such relief was sought for in the suit and there is no case of mismanagement?

7. Pending appeal, both the plaintiffs arrayed as respondents 67 and 68 in the appeal are died. The appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking to delete both the plaintiffs from the party array. This was allowed by order dated 12.11.2025 at the risk of the appellant.

8. Today when the matter is taken up for final hearing, this Court finds itself unable to proceed with the matter further because the appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.146 of 2000 passed by the Munsiff Court, Haripad in favour of respondents 67 and 68 and that decree was challenged before the first Appellate Court which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. As of today, the appeal stands abated as against the plaintiffs. Further, the conscious act of the appellants in seeking to delete respondents 67 and 68 from the party array and non impleadment of their legal heirs would necessarily mean that the appeal stands abated against the deceased plaintiffs.

9. Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would however submit that the directions issued by the first appellate court goes beyond the relief sought for in the appeal and therefore notwithstanding the fact that the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff are not in party array and that the suit being one filed in a representative capacity, the appellants shall have the locus standi to continue with the present litigation.

10. Sri. T. Madhu, the learned counsel for the 19th respondent however pointed out that the judgment of the first appellate court required the administrator to conduct the election within sixty days after completion of the voters list and that the election has already been completed and therefore the present grievance of the appellants in the present appeal has become infructuous.

11. This court is unable to agree with submissions of the Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel for the appellants. Admittedly, the appellants have consciously given up their case against the plaintiff by deleting them from the party array instead of impleading the legal heirs. Now the question before this Court is whether, it should proceed with the appeal notwithstanding the absence of the legal heirs of the plaintiff. Pertinently, the