Usha Mehra, J. ( 1 ) SMT. ISHAR Devi sought probate of the will dated 8th May, 1970 executed by her late husband Shri Dhani Ram. On the presentation of probate petition, three of her sons out of six, namely, S/shri 0m Parkash, Ramesh Kumar and Narinder Kumar filed objections to the grant of probate in favour of their mother. The learned District Judge by the impugned order dated 19th January, 1987 dismissed the objections of her sons thereby holding that late Shri Dhani Ram was not of unsound mind. He was not in mental disturbance at the time of executing the will in question in favour of his wife. Learned District Judge further held that the execution of such a will was not unusual because the deceased bequeathed his property in favour of his wife to the exclusion of his sons. Moreover, the sons who filed the objections were well placed and their disinheritance by the deceased had not effected them financially. There may be a reasons for the deceased to disinherit them. That there was no suspicion circumstance appearing in the case which could caste doubt in the genuiness of the will . Objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the learned Court on the ground that a suit for partition was pending in the High Court was also rejected on the ground that District Judge had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the probate matter. That the judgement given by the learned District Judge on the probate petition would be a judgment in rem. The court was not deciding the question of title in the property. As regards their objection under Section 281 to the effect that the petition was not properly verified the same was also rejected on the ground that the provision under Section 281 are directory and not mandatory. Reliance in this regard was placed by the learned District Judge on various decisions which have been quoted by him in the impugned judgment. After dismissing the objections the learned District Judge by the impugned order granted the letter of administration in favour of deceased s wife. ( 2 ) THE objectors have felt aggrieved with the impugned order hence preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the original will was not filed with the petition which was a statutory requirement hence the petition was not maintainable. ( 2 ) THE objectors have felt aggrieved with the impugned order hence preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the original will was not filed with the petition which was a statutory requirement hence the petition was not maintainable. Moreover, late filing of the alleged will could be an act of forgery which possibility cannot be ruled out. That the respondent smt. Ishar Devi failed to explain the delay in filing the probate petition. Shri Dhani Ram died in January, 1976 whereas probate petition was filed in 1980. Delay of four years remained unexplained. The respondent got the alleged will registered during the pendency of the probate proceedings. The alleged will was got registered without producing the attesting witnesses before the Sub- Registrar. Probate petition had not been got verified from the attesting witnesses. Certificate from the attesting witness about the execution of the will by the deceased and about his mental state of affairs had not been annexed. Signatures of one of the attesting witness Lala Lachman Dass Kohli could not be relied. Witness from the Registrar office had not been produced. Thus, the will was not properly proved and hence the objections ought to have been accepted. ( 3 ) AT the outset Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent Smt. Ishar Devi took preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. According to him this appeal stood abetted. To support his argument he referred to the admitted facts on record namely the appellant No. 2 Ramesh Kumar died on 29th January, 1992. No legal heir of late Ramesh Kumar had been brought on record. Hence, the appeal abates against him. Since the judgement in probate is a judgement in rem hence if it abets against one appellant it abets as a whole. Moreover, the two respondents before the Trial Court namely. Mohan Parkash and Basant Kumar i. e. respondents 5 and 6 before the Trial Court have not been impleaded as a party in this appeal. This appeal, therefore, stood barred against them. Since it was a composite judgment in rem and the parties before the Trial Court have not been impleaded as a party in this appeal, therefore, appeal as a whole requires to be dismissed. This appeal, therefore, stood barred against them. Since it was a composite judgment in rem and the parties before the Trial Court have not been impleaded as a party in this appeal, therefore, appeal as a whole requires to be dismissed. ( 4 ) ON the question of maintainability on the above ground admittedly legal heirs of appellant No. 2 Ramesh Kumar have not been impleaded as parties. Nor S/shri Mohan Parkash and Basant Kumar had been made party in this appeal. I find force in the submissions of Mr. Ravinder Sethi that judgement in probate is a judgement inrem. Once a party in the probate petition has not been impleaded and the appeal becomes barred against him then the appeal as a whole has to be dismissed. Similarly, if appeal abets against one it would operate against other also. In this regard reference can be placed on the decision of the Orissa High court in the case of Amitav Ray Vs. Ashok Kumar Ray and am, AIR 1981 Orissa page 109. In that case there was a challenge to the grant of Letter of Administration. Defendant No. 2 therein filed an appeal challenging the decision of the subordinate Court. Originally only the plaintiffs were made respondents, but subsequently amendment was allowed and original defendants 1,3 and 4 were allowed to be impleaded as respondents 3,4 and 5. Since the appellant did not take steps to serve respondent No. 5, the appeal as a whole was dismissed. The dismissal was upheld by the Orissa High Court. In the said case since appeal abated against respondent No. 5 and, therefore, Court could not proceed with the appeal. Similarly, the addition of respondents 3, 4 and 5 having been made after the period of limitation, therefore, the appeal as a whole became barred by limitation. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. In the said case since appeal abated against respondent No. 5 and, therefore, Court could not proceed with the appeal. Similarly, the addition of respondents 3, 4 and 5 having been made after the period of limitation, therefore, the appeal as a whole became barred by limitation. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram, AIR 1962 SC 89 the Supreme Court laid down the principles as to under what circumstances the Court will not proceed with an appeal, namely, (a) when the success of the appeal may lead to the Court s coming to a decision which will be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent and, therefore, which would lead to the Court s passing a decree which will be contradictory to the decree which had become final with respect to the same subject matter between the appellant and the deceased respondent; (b) when the appellant could not have brought the action for the necessary reliefs against those respondents alone who are still before the Court and (c) when the decree against the surviving respondents, if the appeal succeeds, will be ineffective, that is to say, it could not be successfully executed. " ( 5 ) THE Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the Case of Prahalled Dhal Vs. Nilamani Dhal, (1972) 2 Cutt-WR 680 held that :- "even when respondent dies and there is chance of conflicting decisions, the appeal cannot proceed. To the same effect are the observations of Cuttack High Court in the case of Alli Sheriff Vs. Salurammanna (1953) 19 Cutt-LT page 474. The Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Shambehari Lal Jagannath, AIR 1963 SC 1901 reiterated the law it laid down in thecase of Nathu Ram (supra) when it observed as under:- "the appellate Court has no power to proceed with the appeal and to reverse and vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants under Order 41 Rule 4 when the decree proceeds on a ground, common to all the plaintiffs or defendants, if all plaintiffs or the defendants appeal from the decree and any of them dies and the appeal abates. " Similarly the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Chand Vs. " Similarly the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Chand Vs. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand, AIR 1966 SC 1427 re-affirmed its decision in the case of Nathu Ram (supra) and held that "even if one of the tests laid down in Nathu Ram case is satisfied, the Court may having regard to all the circumstances hold that the appeal has abated in its entirety. " Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Smt. Bahuria Manikraj Kaur Vs. Smt. Amarbas Kuar, AIR 1944 Patna page 38. The Division bench while dealing with Order 22 Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code has held that a Will must be either good or bad against all the world. Where a probate is granted of a Will and the appeal against it is allowed to be abated as against some of the respondents, the whole appeal must be dismissed. Reliance can also be placed on the Full Bench decision of Patna High court in the case of Ramphal Sahu Vs. Satdeo Jha, AIR 1940 Patna page 340. In fact Supreme Court in the case of Nathu Ram (supra) has clearly held that grant of Letters of Administration is indivisible one, in as much as the grant has the force of a decree. The appeal in this case cannot proceed in the absence of two respondents who were party before the Trial Court and not impleaded as party before this Court. The question whether respondents 5 and 6 are necessary party or not or that appellants have not claimed any relief against them is of no importance in such a case. The question is whether the Court can proceed with the appeal in the absence of two respondents 5 and 6, who were party in the court below. The answer would be in negative. This appeal is incomplete. As observed in the case of Amitav Ray (supra) under the Indian Succession Act general citations as well as special citations are issued and the special citations are in respect of persons who are necessary parties. Therefore, the question whether appeal is competent and whether the Appellate Court will follow the decision of the lower Court, by virtue of the tests laid down in the case of Nathu Ram (supra) appeal cannot proceed in the absence of respondents 5 and 6 as well as of the legal heirs of appellant No. 2. Therefore, the question whether appeal is competent and whether the Appellate Court will follow the decision of the lower Court, by virtue of the tests laid down in the case of Nathu Ram (supra) appeal cannot proceed in the absence of respondents 5 and 6 as well as of the legal heirs of appellant No. 2. This Court cannot look into the question whether any relief has been sought against respondents 5 and 6 or any relief has been given up on the death of appellant No. 2. His legal heirs having not been impleaded as party prejudice would be caused to them if the decision of the learned District Judge is to be varied. Then it, will definitely effect the legal heirs of appellant No. 2 as well as respondents 5 and 6, against whom appeal has become barred by time. Since appeal has abated against legal heirs of appellant No. 2 and time barred against respondents 5 and 6, therefore, in the absence of proper parlies before this Court this appeal cannot proceed, it has to be dismissed as a whole. The contention ofmr. A. P. Mahajan that since the appellants had filed common objections as well as this appeal, therefore, non-impleading the legal heirs of appellant No. 2 would not effect the appeal. To my mind, this argument has no force. Once decree has been passed against all, the appeal has to proceed according to Order 41, CPC. In the absence of any party, who was a party before the Trial Court or his legal heirs, the Appellate Court cannot proceed with the appeal because there is no proper appeal before the Court. Hence this appeal has to be dismissed as a whole. Reliance by Mr. A. P. Mahajan on the decision of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Prasadi Lal Vs. Smt. Mathra Bai AIR 1996 MP 246 is of no help to him. that decision is distinguishable on facts. In that case no decree had been passed against Budhu Ram. In fact Budha Ram was not arrayed as party, therefore, non-impleading him in the appeal, the Court observed that it was not fatal to the maintainability of the appeal as he was not party in the Trial Court. But that is not the case in hand. In this case the respondents 5 and 6 were party in the probate petition. Decree was passed against them. But that is not the case in hand. In this case the respondents 5 and 6 were party in the probate petition. Decree was passed against them. Therefore, non-impleading them as party in the appeal, the appeal became barred by time against them and abated against the legal heirs of appellant No. 2. Decree was passed against respondent No. 3 Ramesh Kumar, appellant No. 2 herein. On his death his legal heirs having not been impleaded, the appeal cannot proceed. The judgment of the learned District Judge in a probate petition is a judgment in rem, therefore, it abates as a whole. The facts of the case of Prasadi Lal (supra) were quite distinguishable. Hence the observation in Prasadi Lal s case would not apply to the facts of this case. Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Rarnkrishna AIR 1990 SC 1981 was dealing with a suit where decree was passed only against the firm and two of its partners. Firm had four partners but decree was against only two partners. In appeal these two partners against whom decree had not been passed were not impleaded as party. It was in this-background the Apex Court observed that it was not necessary to implead those partners against whom no decree was passed. So far as the case of State Bank of India (supra) relied by Mr. A. P. Mahajan the decision in no way help him because facts are totally different. No reliance can thus be placed on the observation of Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra ). For the reasons stated above, I say that the appeal has abated as a whole. The same is accordingly dismissed.