Short Note : 1. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was the sole and exclusive owner of the disputed tank. The trial Court dismissed the suit. During the pendency of the present appeal respondent No. 3 Gulab Ram expired. No legal representative of deceased was brought on record within time. Held : The decree having become final against the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3 Gulab Ram, the success of this appeal was bound to result in a decision which will be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent and thus there will be a contradictory decree against the one which had become final with respect to the same subject matter of the suit between the parties. It is further clear that appellant plaintiff could not have filed the suit for the relief against the surviving respondents alone without impleading the deceased respondent Gulab Ram. That apart, the decree against the surviving respondents. If the appeal succeeds, be ineffective inasmuch as it would not be possible to successfully execute the same in absence of the legal representative of deceased respondent Gulab Ram. Ramagya Prasad Gupta and others v. Murli Prasad and others, AIR 1972 SC 1181 , State of Punjab v. Nathuram, AIR 1969 SC 89, Union of India v. Shree Ram Bohra and others, AIR 1965 SC 1531 , relied on. Appeal dismissed.