JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment dated December 9, 1965 of the Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad, dismissing the plaintiff's appeal and confirming the trial Court's judgment dismissing their suit. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that the two plots described in the plaint are their private grave-yard in which the plaintiffs have a customary right, of burying their dead and defendants Nos. 1 to 7 have no right in the said plots. Defendants respondents Nos. 8 and 9 are the Gram Sabha of the village and the State of Uttar Pradesh The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 to 3 only and the case set up by them is that the disputed plots belonged exclusively to defendant Nos. 5 to 7 who had buried some members of their family in them that the plaintiffs had nothing to do with these plots that the plots are not grave-yards and that by a valid sale-deed defendants Nos. 5 to 7 had transferred the disputed plots to defendant Nos. 1, to 4 who thereby became Bhumidhars of the same. 3. The trial court found the defendant version to be correct and held that the vendee of defendants Nos. 5 to 7 or in other words the contesting defendants, had become Bhumidhars of the disputed land in view of the sale-deed executed in their favour. 4. For not taking steps against respondent No. 7, by the order dated March 22, 1973 this appeal has already been dismissed as against defendant-respondent No. 7. 5. The first question which arises in this case is whether the entire appeal has abated because of the said order dated March 22, 1973. It was rightly argued on behalf of the respondent that as has been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 89. the entire appeal must be held to have abated. It was rightly argued on behalf of the respondent that as has been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 89. the entire appeal must be held to have abated. While enumerating as to under what circumstances an appeal shall abate, the Supreme Court observed: "When the success of the appeal may lead to the Court's coming to a decision which will be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent and therefore which would lead to the court's passing a decree which will be contradictory to the decree which had become final with respect to the same subject matter between the appellant and the deceased respondent." 6. As has been observed, the decision of the courts below is that the property in suit belonged to defendants Nos. 5 to 7 who sold the same by a registered sale-deed to the contesting defendants. On the basis of the decision the contesting defendants or in other words the vendees have been held to have become Bhumidhars of the and in suit. The appeal cannot be allowed without recording a finding that the land did not belong to defendant-respondent No. 7 and his brothers, but belonged to the plaintiffs and this naturally would lead to conflicting decisions resulting in contradictory decrees as between the plaintiffs-appellants and defendant-respondent No. 7. Therefore, in view of the order dated March 22, 1973 the entire appeal must be held to have abated. 7. The next question'which arises for a decision in this case is the effect of the Notification published under subsection (2) of Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act dated May 30, 1968 as given at page 121 of 1968 Allahabad Law Times. The said Notification shows that the village in which the property in suit is situate came under consolidation operations in the year 1968 long before the order dated March 22, 1973 was passed by this Court as discussed above. The said Notification shows that the village in which the property in suit is situate came under consolidation operations in the year 1968 long before the order dated March 22, 1973 was passed by this Court as discussed above. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that in view of the said Notification this appeal as also the suit giving rise to this appeal must be deemed to have abated on the date of publication of the said Notification and, therefore, in fact, there was no appeal pending before this Court on March 22, 1973 and the order passed by this Court on that date had been passed when this Court was no longer seised of the case and had no jurisdiction to pass the said order. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of the Court to the words "every proceeding..............pending before any Court.......................whether of the first instance or of appeal............shall on the order being passed in that behalf by the Court before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated" appearing in clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was pointed out that the appeal cannot be said to have abated on the date of publication of the Notification in view of the relevant portion of clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Act which lays down that the appeal shall abate ".......... on an order being passed in that behalf of the Court..." 8. As no order has yet been passed to the effect that this appeal has abated in view of the publication of the said Notification, it could not be said that the appeal had already abated when the order dated March 22, 1973 was passed by this Court. It was further argued that as the appeal had abated as a result of the order dated March 22, 1973 the question of its abating because of the publication of the Notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act does not arise. 9. It was further argued that as the appeal had abated as a result of the order dated March 22, 1973 the question of its abating because of the publication of the Notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act does not arise. 9. Agreeing with the contentions put forward on behalf of the respondents, I hold that this appeal abated, for the reasons discussed, in view of the order dated March 22, 1973 passed by this Court dismissing the appeal against defendant-respondent No. 7 and, therefore,' it cannot now be ordered to have abated under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act. 10. The appeal is decided according. Parties to bear their own costs.