JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This second appeal has been filed by the defendant. Smt. Shcorani. These plaintiffs have filed suit to establish claim over plot no. 466, as private grave yard and also sought relief restraining Smt. Sheorani from using it for agricultural or any other purpose. A further relief was also claimed that the sale-deed dated 23rd September, 1963, be cancelled. Possession over the disputed plot was also sought. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision all three plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved the defendant Smt. Sheorani has filed the present second appeal and in the appeal has impleaded all the three plaintiffs as respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. Respondent no. 3 Smt. Nannhi Bibi died during the pendency of the second appeal. Substitution application was moved for substituting her heirs and legal representatives along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On 16th April, 1982, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the substitution application were rejected and a further order was passed that the appeal abates in so far as the plaintiff-respondent no. 3 is concerned. 3. The position as it stands now is that in so far as the decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 is concerned, the same has become final. It has now to be considered as to whether the present second appeal will abate as a whole. In my opinion the present second appeal has to abate as a whole inasmuch on the allowing of the present second appeal two inconsistent decrees will come into existence. 4. For the reasons stated above, the present second appeal abates and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.