Short Note : 1. The facts, in brief, leading to the present appeal are that the suit lands originally belonged to one Ramki who executed a gift-deed dated 16-6-65 in favour of the plaintiff, who is her brother's son. Subsequent1y, Ramki filed a Civil Suit against the plaintiff for cancellation of the said gift-deed and succeed in securing a decree for cancellation of the same. The appeal (Civil Appeal No. 9-A of 1966) which was filed by the plaintiff before the lower appellate Court was got dismissed as not pressed. The plaintiff later on filed the present suit for declaration of his title and possession against the respondents who had purchased the suit lands from Ramki vide registered sale deed (Ex.P.1) dated 23-6-66 and they were put in possession of the same. 2. The respondents disputed the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds including that the gift-deed in favour of the plaintiff having been cancelled. Ramki was within her rights to alienate the suit property in their favour. It was also contended that the respondents are the nearer heirs being agnates of Ramki while the plaintiff is cognate who can only succeed after the agnates. Thus, they claimed dismissal of the suit. 3. Held: It was tried to be contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the appeal which was filed against the decree cancelling the gift-deed could not proceed because of merger of rights and, therefore, its dismissal as not dressed could not make the decree of the first Court final. In my opinion the contention has no substance. Having seen the order of the lower appellate Court passed in that appeal it is clear that the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. whatever might have been the reason for not pressing the appeal that will not be relevant for purposes of deciding the present suit. That appeal having been dismissed, the decree of the first Court cancelling the gift-deed survived and became final in all respects Both the Courts below have taken the similar view and rightly so. Thus, there was no impediment in the right of Ramki to transfer the suit lands in favour of the respondents. Even otherwise, as it is not in dispute, that the respondents being preferential heir as agnates to Ramki they would inherit the estate of the deceased Ramki in preference to the plaintiff. Thus, there was no impediment in the right of Ramki to transfer the suit lands in favour of the respondents. Even otherwise, as it is not in dispute, that the respondents being preferential heir as agnates to Ramki they would inherit the estate of the deceased Ramki in preference to the plaintiff. Thus from whatever angle the case may be looked into, the plaintiff has absolutely no right to lay any claim over the suit lands all against the respondents. Appeal dismissed.