ORDER : Ashok Bhan, J. The plaintiffs PL. S.K.R.S. Ramanathan Chettiar, PL. S.L. Chellappa Chettiar, PL. S.L. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar and PL. S.L. Chellappa Chettiar filed a suit for declaration for recovery of possession together with damages against the appellant-defendant. It was stated that the property had been set apart for the benefit of PL. S. Family Trust. The suit was decreed by the trial court declaring that the suit property was the property set apart and earmarked by PL. S. Family Trust for the temple trust and the defendants were directed to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiffs for the benefit of the Trust, along with mesne profits. 2. The appellant-defendant filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial court. During the pendency of the first appeal, one of the plaintiffs died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The first appeal was dismissed. 3. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed in the High Court of Madras. During the pendency of the second appeal, PL. S.L. Chellappa Chettiar died. An application to bring on record his legal representatives was filed after 2155 days, along with an application for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement. The High Court by order dated 12-2-1991 dismissed the said application holding that a case to condone an inordinate delay of 2155 days or for setting aside the abatement was not made out. Thereafter, the second appeal was taken up for hearing. In the second appeal, it was held that the decree was indivisible and, therefore, the appeal would abate as against the other respondents as well. The decision on merits could result in passing of contradictory decrees which was not permissible in law. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 28-11-1991 dismissed the second appeal as having abated against the other respondents as well. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the property was declared to be meant for use of the family trust, the death of one of the trustees would not result in abatement of the entire appeal as the other two trustees present on record would represent the Trust. We do not find any merit in this submission. The suit was neither filed by nor against the Trust. We do not find any merit in this submission. The suit was neither filed by nor against the Trust. Had the suit been filed by or against the Trust, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that death of one of the trustees would not result in abatement of the entire appeal would have been correct. It was a suit filed by the trustees in their individual capacity seeking a declaration as well as for possession against the appellant. With the dismissal of the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of one of the deceased respondents before the High Court, the decree in favour of the said respondent became final. The decree being indivisible, any interference with the decree would result in passing of contradictory decrees, which is not acceptable in law. The High Court was thus right in dismissing the second appeal as having abated as a whole. 5. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents states that perhaps a compromise has been arrived at between the parties outside the Court. If that be so, then, it is made clear that our order would not affect the said compromise. Appeal dismissed.