Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHRI BAKSHISH SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ARJAN SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (3) 566 1996 SCALE (3)49
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court made in Second Appeal No. 477/68 on September 12,
1978.
The admitted facts are that one Mathra Singh, Plaintiff
No.1 and defendant Nos.1 to 13 were partners of the factory
known as Modern Ice Factory at Gurdaspur. A suit was filed
for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.
The trial Court dismissed the suit. Appeal also was
dismissed. While he second appeal was pending, it is not in
dispute that two of the partners died. Their legal
representatives were not brought on record. Consequently,
the High Court dismissed the second appeal as having abated
as against all the respondents. Thus, this appeal by special
leave.
It is pointed out in the report of the Registry that
respondent Nos. 8 and 14(i), pending this appeal, have also
died and no steps have been taken to bring the legal
representatives on record. It is contended by Smt. Manjeet
Chawla, learned counsel for the appellant that the original
partners are respondent Nos.2, 14 and 15. As against them,
the appeal has not been abated and the High Court was wrong
in its conclusion that the appeal stands abated as against
other persons who have subsequently purchased the interest
of the partners. It is seen that even pending appeal the
14th respondent, the original partner also died and his
legal representatives were brought on record and that
respondent 14(i) also died. 8th respondent also died pending
appeal.
It is well settled law that when the decree is single
and indivisible, there cannot be inconsistent decrees as
against the deceased respondents and the contesting
surviving respondents. It is seen that two respondent-
partners died pending second appeal. Therefore, there cannot
be any inconsistent decree as against the dead persons and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
against whom the decree dismissing the suit had become final
and other contesting respondents whose rights are to be
adjudicated in the second appeal.
It would, therefore, be clear that the High Court has
not committed any error of law. Since the appeal has already
got abated as against the deceased respondents, the Court
cannot proceed further on merits. Equally, the same
situation is confirmed in this appeal also. Since respondent
Nos. 8 and 14(i) had already died and their rights have
become final; since their legal representatives have not
been brought on record and the appeal stands abated as
against them, it would be inconsistent if we go into the
merits of the matter as against the contesting respondents
in this appeal. Under these circumstances, this appeal also
stands abated as against all the respondents.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.