Judgment :- This Second Appeal arises out of concurrent findings of Courts below dismissing the appellants/plaintiffs suit for declaration that private common passage is width of 20 and for Permanent Injunction. 2. Facts giving rise to this second appeal are as follows:- It is common ground that plaint A Schedule Property measuring 16 grounds, consists of building, situated in Kalathiappa Mudali Street, Vepery, Madras-7, originally belonged to the seventh Defendant. The seventh Defendant put up row of houses long time back and sold to various persons. Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 6 are purchasers either from the seventh Defendant or from his alienees. The dispute is as to the breadth of common passage left by the seventh Defendant in between two rows of houses running north to south. Western row consists of D.Nos.31 to 36 and eastern row consists of D.Nos.27-30. 3. Stating that they have passage of width of 20 and that the Defendants are attempting to put up construction, encroaching 20 common passage, plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction. 4. Defendants resisted the suit denying the breadth of the common passage as 20. According to the Defendants, width of common passage is only 14 in the front and 15 at the end. 5. Referring to the Sale Deeds that plaintiffs documents seldom support plaintiffs case that the breadth of common passage is 20, trial Court declined to grant the relief of declaration and Permanent Injunction. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred appeal. Confirming the findings of trial Court, the lower Appellate Court held that there was error in the Sale Deed as to the width of the common passage. The lower Appellate Court took the view that the width of common passage 20 in Exs.A-1, A-4 and A-6 have been mentioned wrongly and the same would not confer title upon the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs Sale Deeds themselves contain the width of common pathway as 15. 6. At the time of admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:- "1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are contrary to the provisions of Sec.8 of the Transfer of Property Act? 2. 6. At the time of admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:- "1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are contrary to the provisions of Sec.8 of the Transfer of Property Act? 2. Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in rendering a finding that there was mistake in the description of the width of the common pathway in Exs.A-1, A-4 and A-6 in the absence of any pleading or evidence to this effect?" 7. After filing of second appeal, respondents 1, 4, 5 and 7 died. No steps had been taken to implead the Legal Representatives of those respondents. Placing reliance upon AIR 2004 SC 3942 – Shahazada Bi and ors. v. Halimabi (since deceased by L.R.s), the learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the interest of other co-Defendants are separate and therefore, the suit will abate only as against the interest of the Defendants and there is no impediment in getting along with the second appeal, notwithstanding the abatement of the second appeal as against the respondents who were dead. 8. Following the decisions in Sant Singh v. Gulab Singh, (AIR 1928 Lah 572 (FB); Masilamani Nadar v. Kuttiamma, (1960 Ker L.J. 936) and S. Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Smt. Pramod Gupta, ( AIR 2003 SC 2588 : 2003 AIR SCW 2799, in AIR 2004 SC 3942 ) (cited supra), the Supreme Court held: "Or.22, R.4 CPC lays down that where within the time limited by law, no application is made to implead the legal representatives of a deceased-Defendant, the suit shall abate as against a deceased- Defendant. This rule does not provide that by the omission to implead the legal representatives of a Defendant, the suit will abate as a whole. What was the interest of the deceased - Defendant in the case, whether he represented the entire interest or only a specific part is a fact that would depend on the circumstances of each case. if the interests of the co-defendants are separate, as in case of co-owners, the suit will abate only as regards the particular interest of the deceased party." Following the ratio of the above decision, notwithstanding the death of respondents 1, 4 5 and 7, there is no impediment for proceeding with the second appeal as against the other contesting respondents. 9. 9. Challenging the concurrent findings, the learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that common pathway is 20 width and the same cannot be restricted by subsequent documents. The learned Counsel would further submit that the lower Appellate Court erred in finding that there was mistake in the description of width of the common pathway in Exs.A-1, A-4 and A-6. The learned Counsel would further argue that definite recitals in Exs.A-1, A-4 and A-6 as to width of common pathway as 20 was not properly appreciated by the Courts below and therefore, the concurrent findings is to be interfered with. 10. Laying emphasis upon Ex.B-9, patta, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the documents - Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiff and Ex.B-9 would amply show that the width of the pathway is only 14 in area and in the backside, 15. The learned Counsel further submitted that upon appreciation of documentary evidence, Courts below have recorded concurrent findings and the same do not suffer from any perversity. Insofar as abatement of the appeals against some of the respondents, the learned Counsel would submit that the Judgment of the Courts below would stand, as it is against the Defendants respondents and there cannot be two conflicting Judgments. 11. Plaintiffs/appellants laid much emphasis upon Exs.A-1, A-6 and A-4 – Sale Deeds in favour of Balu Sankar Davey, by seventh Defendant wherein the width of common passage is mentioned as 20. The width of common pathway has been stated as 20 in the plan attached to the Sale Deeds. The details of the Sale Deeds Exs.A-1, A-4 and A6 are as follow :- 12. Though in the plan attached to Sale Deeds Exs.A-1, A-4 and A-6 width of common pathway is mentioned as 20, in the subsequent Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, the width of pathway has been stated as 15. Following details of Sale Deeds in respect of plaintiffs are relevant to be noted: 13. Likewise, in the Sale Deeds in favour of the Defendants, Exs.B-14, B-22 and B-23, width is mentioned as 15 only. In Ex.B-6 Sale Deed, the width of common passage is mentioned as 14. 14. Claiming right of passage width as 20 based on the recitals in Exs.A-1, A-4 and A-6 is not tenable. Likewise, in the Sale Deeds in favour of the Defendants, Exs.B-14, B-22 and B-23, width is mentioned as 15 only. In Ex.B-6 Sale Deed, the width of common passage is mentioned as 14. 14. Claiming right of passage width as 20 based on the recitals in Exs.A-1, A-4 and A-6 is not tenable. As pointed out by the Courts below, within a few days after Ex.A-1, seventh Defendant had executed Ex.B-2 - Sale Deed in favour of the second plaintiff dated 210. 1977. In Ex.B-2 Sale Deed, the width of common passage is mentioned as only 15. If the actual width of common passage was 20, the plaintiffs would not have remained content with recitals in their Sale Deeds stating width of common passage as 15. Pointing out the width of common private road in the Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, the Courts below were justified in holding that the width of common passage is only 15 and not 20 as claimed by the plaintiffs. 15. Plaintiffs who seek Decree for declaration and Permanent Injunction are to prove the availability of 20 common passage. In his evidence PW-1 has stated that he did not know the actual width of suit passage on the date of his purchase. Apart from examining the fourth plaintiff, plaintiffs have not produced any other evidence. Plaintiffs have not sought for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the suit passage and measure its width. Having failed to adduce best attainable evidence, plaintiffs cannot successfully challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Courts below rightly arrived at the conclusion that the width of common passage is only 15 and not 20 as claimed by the plaintiffs. The concurrent findings do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal as against the respondents 1, 4, 5 and 7 is dismissed as abated (confirming the Judgment of the Court below dated 24. 1998 made in A.S.No.660/1984 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) as against the other contesting respondents also, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.