JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and legal representatives, of Defendant No. 3 are the Appellants in this Second Appeal against a confirming judgment. 2. Suit is for declaration that the Plaintiffs have a right of easement over the suit land and consequently for permanently restraining the Defendants from creating disturbance or obstructing path way of the Plaintiffs and for mandatory injunction, to remove the obstruction to the path way. Defendant No. 3 was purchaser of the suit land. Defendant Nos. l and 3 filed a joint written statement in the suit denying the claim of the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 remained ex parte. During pendency of the suit, Defendant No. 3 having died his legal representatives were substituted. In the suit, a joint decree was passed against all the Defendants declaring the right of easement of passage of the Plaintiffs and perpetually restraining the Defendants from interfering with the same. A direction was given to them for removal of newly constructed building on the suit land. All the Defendants preferred appeal against the decree which however, was confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and the substituted legal representatives of' Defendant No. 3 filed this Second Appeal. 3. During pendency of this appeal, Udhaba Ojha one of the sons of Defendant No. 3 who was substituted as a Defendant died. Learned Counsel for the Appellants intimated the fact by a memorandum. There upon, time was granted on 15-4-1987 to take steps for substitution as against the deceased who was Appellant No. 6. Date after date opportunity was given to the Appellants for substitution. Lastly, on 9-12-1987, the following order was passed: Steps for substitution as against Appellant No. 6 shall betaken within two weeks failing which the appeal shall stand abated as against Appellant No. 6 without further reference to Bench. No step having been taken, the appeal was recorded to have stood abated as against Appellant No. 6 by order dated 27-1-1988. Long one year after, when this appeal was being beard today, this fact was brought to my notice by Learned Counsel far the Respondent urging that the appeal has abated as a whole and on that ground ought to be dismissed. Long one year after, when this appeal was being beard today, this fact was brought to my notice by Learned Counsel far the Respondent urging that the appeal has abated as a whole and on that ground ought to be dismissed. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that: the-other legal representatives of Gopal being already on record, can continue the appeal and in any Case, there is substantial representation. Learned Counsel for the Appellants urged that legal representatives of deceased Appellant No. 6 are on record. 4. Who would be the legal representatives of a deceased would depend on facts. No fact has been brought to record to justify how the other Appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Appellant No. 6. Appellants were given sufficient opportunity to bring facts to record. In case the facts would have been as is submitted now, Appellant would not have failed to bring the same to the notice of the Court. Accordingly, it shall not be upreasonable to drawn adverse inference against the Appellants and come to conclusion that the other Appellants are not the legal representatives of the Appellant No. 6. question of substantial representation would arises if same legal representatives are either on the record or brought to record on the finding that legal representatives are not on the record, there is no substantial representation. 5. Next submission of learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the appeal does not abate as a whole since the remaining Appellants can effectively continue the appeal to avoid the adverse decree against them. I am not inclined to accept this submission. A joint decree has passed against all the Defendants and they filed appeal and Second Appeal jointly. On abatement of the appeal of Appellant. No. 6, the decree of the appellate Court stood confirmed against him which is binding on his legal representatives. In case the Second Appeal is allowed to be continued by the remaining Appellants and in the event of their success in the appeal, the decree declaring title would continue against the legal representatives of Appellant No. 6 whereas there would be no such decree against the other Appellants. Being a joint decree, it can not be separated and thus there would be inconsistency. No Court can pass inconsistent decrees. Being a joint decree, it can not be separated and thus there would be inconsistency. No Court can pass inconsistent decrees. Therefore, in absence of the legal representatives of Appellant No. 6, the appeal cannot be continued by the remaining Appellants. Accordingly, the Second Appeal abates as a whole. 6. In view of the abatement of the entire appeal. I need not consider the merits which is academic. 7. In the result the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed