Short Note : The plaintiff's case set out in the plaint as now stated. Admittedly the defendants Motilal and Barelal, who are both now dead having died during the pendency of this appeal, were real brothers The plaintiff alleges that patta for the suit land was granted to defendant No.2 Barelal but the same was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 29-5-60 and his appeal to the Collector, Sagar also failed; after cancellation of the patta granted to the defendant No.2 the land reverted to the State and defendant No.2 Barelal ceased to have any right therein; subsequently the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff as she was the widow of a political sufferer vide patta dated 18-7-61 on account of which the plaintiff became Bhumiswami of the suit land from that date; notwithstanding the grant of patta to the plaintiff in this manner, the defendants precluded the plaintiff from taking possession of the suit land. On this basis, it was alleged that the defendants have no title to the suit land nor are they entitled to retain possession of the same after 18-7-61 when patta was granted to the plaintiff. It is on the basis of her claim as Bhumiswami of the suit land, the title being acquired in the manner stated, that possession of the suit land and past mesne profits were claimed in the suit which was filed on 26-2-64. 2. The defendants filed separate written statements. The substance of the defence taken by both was that the cancellation of patta granted earlier to Barelal, defendant No.2, was invalid against which a second appeal filed to the Revenue Commissioner was still pending; the possession of the defendants was, therefore, not illegal and the plaintiff's title to the suit land was denied. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then preferred an appeal to the District Court which was dismissed by Shri V.S. Pyasi, 2nd Addl. District Judge, Sagar. In para 7 of its judgment, the first appellate Court has side that the suit was not permature and was perfectly valid but for the fact that the State and Barelal were not made parties to the suit. This was one of the reasons for dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal. District Judge, Sagar. In para 7 of its judgment, the first appellate Court has side that the suit was not permature and was perfectly valid but for the fact that the State and Barelal were not made parties to the suit. This was one of the reasons for dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal. This reason was obviously wrong because admittedly Barelal was a party to the suit as well as the first appeal and it is difficult to appreciate how such an obvious mistake was committed by the learned Judge of the Court below particularly when Barelal is shown as respondent No.2 in his own judgment. However, this matter does not require any further consideration for the reasons stated hereafter. Held : The present second appeal was filed by the plaintiff impleading the two defendants-Motilal and Barelal as the respondents. Respondent No. 1 Motilal died on 15-6-75 while respondent No.2 Barelal had died prior to that, both having died during the pendency of this appeal. The legal representatives of respondent No. 1 Motilal have been substituted to his place but no attempt was made to implead the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2 Barelal. By order dated 10-3-72 passed in this appeal, the name of respondent No.2 Barelal was shuck out and it was stated that the effect of not impleading his legal representatives on the question of abatement of the appeal shall be considered at the time of final hearing. It is therefore, this question which has to be gone into first. 4. There is no dispute that the appeal against respondent No. 2 Barelal has abated. The question is whether this appeal can thereafter continue only against the other respondent Motilal or his legal representatives in the absence of legal representatives of deceased Barelal as parties to this appeal. The test to be applied obviously is whether the success of this appeal against Motilal or his legal representatives alone would lead to a conflicting decree contarry to the decree which has become final between the appellant and deceased respondent No.2 Barelal. [See State of Punjab v. Nathuram, AIR 1962 SC 89 ]. Shri S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant argues that no such conflicting decree would result from the success of this appeal since Motilal, defendant No. 1, alone claimed to be in actual possession and the suit is one for possession. [See State of Punjab v. Nathuram, AIR 1962 SC 89 ]. Shri S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant argues that no such conflicting decree would result from the success of this appeal since Motilal, defendant No. 1, alone claimed to be in actual possession and the suit is one for possession. He also argues that no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff against Barelal, defendant No.2. A bare perusal of the plaint is sufficient to indicate that the plaintiff made no distinction between the two defendants so far as the reliefs have been claimed therein, the claim being jointly against both the defendants. If at all the grant of an earlier patta in Barelal's favour alone emphasises the fact that the dispute relating to the title claimed by the plaintiff is on account of the earlier patta granted to Barelal alone. The relief of possession is based only on the plaintiff's claim to title as Bhumiswami. This title claimed by the plaintiff is on the basis that the title acquired by Barelal, defendant No.2, by virtue of the grant of patta in his favour came to an end by cancellation of that patta by the Sub-Divisional Officer so that a subsequent grant on patta in plaintiff's favour conferred a valid title on the plaintiff. The dispute of title on the pleadings of parties was obviously between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 Barelal, the possession of both the defendants, who were brothers, being based on the earlier patta granted to Barelal. The other relief pertaining to mesne profits is a consequence of the earlier relief of possession which undoubtedly is based on plaintiff's claim to title in the manner stated. The question, therefore, is whether on these facts this appeal can continue against the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 Motilal alone, the decree having become final between the appellant and Barelal, defendant No.2 (respondent No.2). 5. The consequence of the decree which has become final between the appellant and Barelal is a denial of the plaintiff's title to the suit land on which the suit is based. If the present appeal against the legal representatives of the other defendant Motilal alone is permitted to continue and it succeeds, then the resulting decree would be one accepting the plaintiff's title to the suit land. If the present appeal against the legal representatives of the other defendant Motilal alone is permitted to continue and it succeeds, then the resulting decree would be one accepting the plaintiff's title to the suit land. It is obvious that such a decree would be in direct conflict with the decree in favour of Barelal which has become final. 6. Shri A.K. Pande, learned counsel for the respondents is, therefore, right in contending that the present appeal against the legal representatives of deceased Motilal, defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1) cannot continue as its success would result in a conflicting decree, the decree between the appellant and respondent No.2 Barelal having become final as a result of the abatement of the appeal against respondent No.2 Barelal. The argument of Shri S.L. Jain to the contrary is, therefore, rejected. 7. The result is that this appeal against the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1 Motilal cannot be held to be properly constituted when the appeal against respondent No.2 Barelal has admittedly abated. Consequently this appeal is dismissed.