An appeal against a joint and inseverable decree abates entirely upon non-substitution of legal heirs.

Nine plaintiffs, owners and occupiers of agricultural lands at Village Balota and Aniyadara, filed Special Civil Suit No. 105 of 1994 against the State Government and the Executive Engineer, alleging that defective construction of the Ukai Right Canal caused their lands to remain submerged during 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94, preventing cultivation and resulting in loss of crops.

The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bharuch, partly decreed the suit and directed payment of Rs.1,31,175/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit until realization.

The State Government preferred the present First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Nos. 6 and 8 died, but their legal representatives were not brought on record; the appeal had consequently abated against them.

Whether, in view of the death of certain respondents and failure to substitute their legal representatives, the appeal abated only against the deceased respondents or abated in its entirety?

Whether the decree under challenge was joint and inseverable such that permitting the appeal to proceed against the surviving respondents could result in conflicting or inconsistent decrees?

The Court applied Order XXII Rules 3, 4, 9 and 11, read with Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning substitution of legal representatives, abatement and the effect of abatement in appeals.

The governing principle is that where the decree is joint and inseverable, and the appeal abates against one of the parties due to non-substitution of legal representatives, the appeal may abate in its entirety if continuation could lead to conflicting or inconsistent decrees.

The Court relied on Suresh Chandra (Deceased) through LRs v. Parasram & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 728, which held that a court cannot pass inconsistent decrees concerning the same subject matter; consequently, where reversal or modification of the decree against the surviving parties would conflict with the decree that has attained finality against the deceased party, the entire appeal abates.

The suit was founded on a common cause of action and resulted in a joint decree directing payment of compensation by the State Government to the plaintiffs.

Since respondent Nos. 6 and 8 had died and their legal representatives were not substituted, the appeal had abated against them.

Applying the principle in Suresh Chandra, the Court held that the decree was joint and inseverable.

If the appeal were permitted to continue against the surviving respondents and the decree were reversed or modified, the result could be inconsistent with the decree that had become final against the deceased respondents.

Such conflicting decrees could not legally stand together.

Accordingly, First Appeal No. 953 of 2001 was dismissed as wholly abated.

Any interim relief stood vacated, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the concerned court, if applicable.

The connected civil applications for bringing heirs on record and condonation of delay were disposed of accordingly.