Judgment R.N. Sahay, J. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant who was the plaintiff in the suit has died and application has been filed by the legal heirs of the appellant for their substitution. The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances the right to sue survives to enable the applicants to be substituted. The deceased appellant filed a suit for declaration that he was legally appointed as Principal of Dayanand Vidyalaya Mithapur. Therefore, the order of dismissal dated 31.7.1972 passed by the Adhoc Managing Committee was ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in terms of the relief claimed in the plaint. It is to be noticed the plaintiff had not claimed any consequential relief for compensation or re-instatement. It was merely a declaratory decree. The defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The Additional District Judge by an exhaustive judgment set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff preferred this appeal. 2. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the proposed heirs of the legal representatives submitted that the applicants are entitled to be substituted as right to sue survives to them. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Indian Oil Corporation & ors. Vs. Md. Sohail & ors. reported in 1993(2) PLJR 666 . In this decision, it was held by the learned Judge, if the plaintiff dies after passing of decree in his favour, there is no question for non-survival of right to sue as the cause of action merges in the decree, and the benefits arising out of it passed to the legal representative and they are entitled to be substituted in place of deceased plaintiff. 3. In Girijanandini Devi & ors. vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary reported in AIR 1967 (S.C.) 1124 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- "But a claim for rendition of account is not a personal claim. It is not extinguished because the party who claims an account, the party who is called upon to account dies. The maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" a personal action dies with the person has a limited application. It is not extinguished because the party who claims an account, the party who is called upon to account dies. The maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" a personal action dies with the person has a limited application. It operates in a limited class of actions ex delicto such as actions for damages for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party and in other actions where after the death of the party the relief granted could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory". 4. In AIR 1986 (S.C.)411, the question for consideration before the Supreme Court was as to whether the cause of action in a suit for defamation survived on the death of the appellant before the Supreme Court. The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a suit instituted for damages of defamation. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court passed a decree for Rs.500/-. The defendant respondent filed a 2nd appeal before the High Court, the appellant filed Cross objection with regard to the amount, which were not decreed in his favour. The second appeal was allowed by the High Court and. the cross objection of the appellant was dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court and during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died. Supreme Court held that the cause of action did not survive after the death of the appellant as the appellant was seeking damage of defamation, which did not survive after his death, but it was held that the plaintiff's right to sue after passing of a decree in his favour then the position would be different. 5. The situation in the instant case is quite different. There is no decree in favour of the appellant. The relief claimed by the plaintiff cannot be granted to his heirs. Therefore, the right to sue does not survive. 6. For the reasons stated above, there can be no doubt, the appeal has abated in terms of Order 22, Rule 2 C.P.C. The prayer for substitution is rejected. It is ordered accordingly.