DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against judgment and decree dated 11-9-2002 in O. S. No. 182 of 1996 on the file of First Additional Senior civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The mother of the fourth defendant in the suit filed this appeal after obtaining leave of this Court as per orders dated 25-3-2003 in C. M. P. No. 21782 of 2002. In the course of this judgment parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in, the original suit. ( 2 ) THE Plaintiff-Bank filed the suit seeking a preliminary decree for a sum of rs. 4,80,81l-42ps. with future interest and costs against four defendants on the following averments in the plaint. The first defendant is a proprietary concern. The second defendant is its proprietor. On 5-2-1987 the bank sanctioned a loan of rs. 25,000/- to second defendant and obtained a pronote from defendants 1 and 2. The third defendant gave guarantee for the discharge of the said debt by defendants 1 and 2. Subsequently loan amount limit was raised to Rs. 50,000. 00. Defendants 1 and 2 produced guarantors. Again, the loan limit was raised to Rs. 75,000. 00. Defendants 1 and 2 executed fresh documents. Second defendant mortgaged the house of fourth defendant and the loan limit was raised to rs. 1,50,000/- on 1-8-1990. Second defendant produced fourth defendant as guarantor for rs. 2,00,000/- on 1-8-1990. Fourth defendant executed guarantee deed and deposited his title deed of house property on 21-8-1990. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed written statement disputing their liability on the ground, that there are discrepancies in the accounts maintained by the bank. Third defendant filed a written statement taking the plea that he stood as guarantor for rs. 25,000/- only and subsequently, without his knowledge and consent, the loan limit was raised. He denied his liability to discharge the suit debt. He also pleaded that one Smt. Sudhakshnadevi gave collateral security for discharge of debt incurred by defendants 1 and 2 and she is a proper and necessary party to the suit. Fourth defendant filed written statement pleading that he was a minor as on 1-8-90, he does not know about the loans obtained by second defendant and he never deposited title deed of his property in the plaintiff-Bank. He also pleaded that his affidavit is forged. He also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. Fourth defendant filed written statement pleading that he was a minor as on 1-8-90, he does not know about the loans obtained by second defendant and he never deposited title deed of his property in the plaintiff-Bank. He also pleaded that his affidavit is forged. He also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (2) Whether the defendants 3 and 4 are not answerable to the suit claim? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim? (4) To what relief? ( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, fourth defendant died. There is no dispute that though plaintiff-Bank was aware of the death of the fourth defendant, it did not bring on record the legal representatives of the fourth defendant. A memo was filed in the trial Court by the advocate for fourth defendant on 27-3-2000 informing the Court about the demise of fourth defendant. The court ordered plaintiff to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record. On 17-7-2000 in the docket proceedings, the trial court recorded that steps were not taken to bring legal representatives on record and the suit against fourth defendant was dismissed as abated. The plaintiff examined one of its officers as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to a-36. No evidence was adduced by defendants 1 to 3. On the basis of evidence on record, by judgment dated 11-9-2002 the first Additional Senior Civil Judge, visakhapatnam passed a preliminary decree in the suit with costs against the property mortgaged by the fourth defendant and also granted personal decree against defendants 1 and 2. He dismissed the suit against third defendant with costs. The plaintiff did not prefer any appeal against the Judgment and decree dismissing the suit against third defendant. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the mother of fourth defendant filed the present appeal with permission of this Court. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration in the present appeal is whether the preliminary mortgage decree passed against property of the fourth defendant after his death is bad in law and liable to be set aside? ( 7 ) THE mortgage decree is passed by the trial Court against the property of fourth defendant. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration in the present appeal is whether the preliminary mortgage decree passed against property of the fourth defendant after his death is bad in law and liable to be set aside? ( 7 ) THE mortgage decree is passed by the trial Court against the property of fourth defendant. The fourth defendant took a categorical plea in his written statement that he was a minor as on 1-8-1990, that he did not produce his title deed before Plaintiff- bank and he is not liabl to discharge the suit debt. In spite of this specific plea of fourth defendant denying the very transaction of mortgage pleaded by plaintiff none of the issues settled by the trial Court extracted supra did cover the said material proposition of fact affirmed by plaintiff and categorically denied by fourth defendant. Thus, it is clear that a material issue to be decided in the suit was not at all settled for trial by the trial Court. The trial Court is bound to frame an appropriate issue"whether fourth defendant deposited his title deed before plaintiff and created an equitable mortgage in favour of plaintiff"and record its findings in the said issue. The trial Judge, did not frame such a necessary issue in the suit and record a finding. The trial Judge proceeded as though there is no dispute by fourth defendant regarding mortgage set up by plaintiff. On this ground alone, the judgment and decree of the trial court are liable to be set aside. In this regard it is necessary to point out that the plaintiff- bank examined only one witness P. W. 1. Deposit of title deed by fourth defendant was said to be during August, 1990. No officer of the plaintiff-Bank working in the said branch at the relevant point of time was examined to prove that fourth defendant deposited his title deed in the bank and with a view to create equitable mortgage in favour of Bank. It is clear from the evidence of P. W. 1 that he was working in the plaintiff-Bank only from July 2000. His evidence does not at all prove the factum of fourth defendant depositing any title deed before plaintiff-Bank with an intention to create an equitable mortgage in favour of plaintiff-Bank and as a guarantor of defendants 1 and 2. It is clear from the evidence of P. W. 1 that he was working in the plaintiff-Bank only from July 2000. His evidence does not at all prove the factum of fourth defendant depositing any title deed before plaintiff-Bank with an intention to create an equitable mortgage in favour of plaintiff-Bank and as a guarantor of defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to prove that the fourth defendant at any time deposited his title deed before plaintiff-Bank for discharge of the loan advanced by the plaintiff-Bank to defendants 1 and 2 from time to time and created an equitable mortgage in favour of plaintiff-Bank. This is a major ground on which the decree of the trial Court against the property of the fourth defendant is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) A reading of the judgment of the trial court clearly indicates that the learned trial judge who passed the preliminary decree is clearly aware that the fourth defendant died during the pendency of the suit and plaintiff did not implead any of the legal representatives of fourth defendant. P. W. 1 admitted the said fact in his evidence. In spite of having knowledge of the above fact, the trial Judge ignored its effect, impact and importance of the said vital fact and passed a preliminary decree for mortgage against the property of fourth defendant. It is also necessary to point out that that the trial judge ignored another important aspect apparent on the face of record. Suit against fourth defendant was dismissed by the trial court itself on 17-7-2000 as abated on the ground that no steps were taken by the plaintiff-Bank to bring on record the L. Rs. of fourth defendant. Undisputedly, the plaintiff did not take further steps subsequently to get the said order of abatement set aside. After the suit was dismissed as abated against any of the defendants no judgment and decree can be passed against such defendant or his property until order of abatement is duly set aside and legal representatives of the deceased defendant are brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased defendant. It is a well-known principle of law that any decree against a dead person is void and unenforceable. It is a well-known principle of law that any decree against a dead person is void and unenforceable. Such a decree is not a decree at all in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside by the appellate Court. The trial Judge did not at all apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the suit and granted totally erroneous decree against property the fourth defendant. We place on record the displeasure of this Court about the manner in which the learned trial Judge decided the suit. For all the reasons stated above, we hold this point in favour of the appellant and against the plaintiff. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed with costs of appellant payable by the plaintiff. Judgment and Preliminary decree granted against property of fourth defendant by the trial Court are set aside. However personal decree granted by the trial Court against defendants 1 and 2 is confirmed.