DEORAM ANA PATIL Vs. SONU PUNA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal reached hearing before me on July 12, 1972, when it was pointed out that respondent No. 1 to this second appeal, Sonu Puna Patil (original plaintiff No. I in regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1960) had died on October 10, 1968. It was further stated that although intimation to this effect had been conveyed to the appellants advocate on February 4, 1972 no steps have been taken by the appellants to bring Sonu's heirs on the record. On this admitted position I held that the appeal had abated as far as respondent No. 1 Sonu was concerned. The question which then remained to be considered was whether the appeal had abated qua respondent No. 2 and even if it be held that it had not abated could it be proceeded with against respondent No. 2.

(2.) MR . Ganpule on behalf of respondent No. 2 contended that the appeal could not be proceeded with only against respondent No. 2 because, if it was proceeded with and allowed, this would result in two inconsistent decrees in the same matter remaining on the record. After this contention was stated, Mr. Kotwal and Mr. Ganpule asked that the matter may be kept back for a few days and on their joint application it was kept till today for further arguments on this point.

(3.) IN their written statement the four defendants (heirs of Reshmabai) denied all these contentions of the plaintiffs. It was also contended that the claim in suit was barred by limitation.