Judgment 1. This second appeal by the defendants is directed against a decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents in a suit filed by them for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to suit property. 2. The appeal stood dismissed against minor respondents Nos. 6 and 7 for non-compliance of order dated 18.12.1979. The matter was then placed before the Bench with a note as to whether the entire appeal has become incompetent. The Bench by its order dated 12.02.1980 directed that the incompetency matter will be decided at the time of the hearing of the apeal. 3. In order to appreciate as to whether the appeal has become incompetent on account of its dismissal against minor respondent Nos. 6 and 7, certain facts will have to be kept in mind. The suit property is a house which belonged to two brothers. The heirs of Ram Bharosa Singh are the plaintiffs whereas the descendant of Sheo Parsan Singh are defendants. Both sides agree that there was a partition between Ram Bharosa and Sheo Parsan but according to the plaintiffs on partition the suit property fell in the share of Ram Bharosa whereas according to the defendants it fell in the lot of Sheo Parsan. The defendants also claimed alternatively that even if it was held that the suit property was allotted to the branch of Ram Bharosa yet the defendants had acquired title to it by prescription. But the finding as recorded by the Court of appeal below is that the suit property was allotted to the branch of the plaintiffs. It has also found that the defendants did not acquire title by prescription. On these findings the suit has been decreed. Plaintiff No. 1 was the grandson of Ram Bharosa and plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7 were the grandsons of plaintiff No. 1. The suit was filed by all the plaintiffs in their own individual capacity although they were members of a joint family. The lower appellate Court awarded a decree to the plaintiffs. The decree as against plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7 became final as the appeal stood dismissed against them for non-compliance of the order dated 18-12-1979. 4. Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, appearing for the appellants, urged that although the appeal has stood dismissed as against plaintiffs Nos. The lower appellate Court awarded a decree to the plaintiffs. The decree as against plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7 became final as the appeal stood dismissed against them for non-compliance of the order dated 18-12-1979. 4. Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, appearing for the appellants, urged that although the appeal has stood dismissed as against plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7 yet it is not incompetent as relief can be given by this Court under Order 41, Rule 4 read with Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also contended that the interest of plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7 was represented by their grandfather plaintiff No. 1. On this count also, he urged, the appeal has not become incompetent. To support his contention Mr. Singh referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad V/s. Jage Ram, AIR 1971 SC 742 wherein it has been held that jurisdiction of appellate Court under Order 41. Rule 4, Civil P.C. is open when other persons who were parties to the proceeding before Subordinate Court and against whom a decree proceeded on a ground which was common to the appellant and to those other persons who were either not impleaded as parties to appeal or were impleaded as respondents. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore, directed that relief could be given to a person who was not on the records of the case, but the question arises as to whether Order 41, Rule 4 will apply in a case where relief is sought against a person who has not been impleaded as a party or against whom the appeal has stood dismissed. In my view, Order 41, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not envisage this. Besides, it is also against the principles of natural justice. In this case, therefore, if the appeal is allowed then it will be prejudicial to plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7 against whom the appeal has already stood dismissed. Again Rule 33 of Order 41 also does not save the situation. Under Order 41, Rule 33, it is true that the appellate Court can vary the entire decree although an appeal has been filed against a part of it only. But this Rule, in my view, will not be attracted where a part of the decree has become final as has been noticed. Under Order 41, Rule 33, it is true that the appellate Court can vary the entire decree although an appeal has been filed against a part of it only. But this Rule, in my view, will not be attracted where a part of the decree has become final as has been noticed. The appeal stood dismissed as against plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7. The effect of this is that the decree became final in their favour. For these reasons, neither Order 41, Rule 4 nor Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure helps the appellants. 5. If the appeal is allowed then the decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession will have to be set aside. It has been noticed that the decree has become final in favour of the plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7; that will mean that there will be two decrees inconsistent with each other which cannot be allowed. The appeal, therefore, in my view, has become incompetent. 6. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.