2025:HHC:10432 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.106/2004. Date of Decision: 21st April, 2025. Harminder Singh & Anr. .....Appellants. Versus Hako (deceased) through LRs & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Appeal against respondents No.1 and 7 stands abated vide order dated 16.05.2024 and 27.12.2022, respectively. None for respondents No.2(a) to 2(c). Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 6. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellants were the contesting defendants before the trial Court. Respondents No.1 to 5 before this Court were the plaintiffs before the trial Court. Respondents No.6 and 7 before this Court were the proforma defendants before the trial Court. The present respondents i.e. plaintiffs and proforma defendants before the trial Court claimed to be in possession of the suit land on account of their predecessor-in-interest having been 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:10432 inducted as a tenant thereupon. Further they claimed to have become owners of the suit land by operation of law. 2. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the present respondents i.e. plaintiffs and proforma defendants before the trial Court were earlier tenants over the suit land and now by operation of law have become owners of the suit land. Revenue entries to the contrary were held to be bad. 3. Insofar as the present appeal is concerned, on 27.12.2022, the appeal stood abated, insofar as respondent No.7 i.e. proforma defendant before the trial Court is concerned. Similarly vide order dated 16.05.2024, the appeal stood abated insofar as respondent No.1 i.e. plaintiff before the trial Court, is concerned. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The abatement of an appeal means not only that the decree between the appellant and the deceased respondent has become final, but also, as a necessary corollary, that the appellate Court cannot, in any way, modify that decree directly or indirectly. The reason is plain. It is that in the absence of the legal representatives of the deceased respondents, the appellate court cannot 3 2025:HHC:10432 determine anything between the appellant and the legal representatives, which may affect the rights of the legal representatives under the decree. It is immaterial that the modification which the court will do is one to which exception can or cannot be taken. 6. The Code does not itself provide for the abatement of the appeal against the other respondents even where, as against one such it has abated but it is only the Courts which have held that in certain circumstances the appeal also would abate against a co-respondent as a result of abatement against the deceased respondent. 7. This aspect has been adjudged in different cases depending upon the nature/source of rights, the cause of action, the manner they were asserted by the parties themselves and the contradictory nature of decrees impossible of execution, likely to result when considered differently. 8. There is no doubt that the allegations made in the plaint clearly show that the dispute is between the landholders and the person who claim to be tenants and so, it is plain that in such a dispute the whole interest of the landholders and the whole interest of the tenants must 4 2025:HHC:10432 be adequately represented. This relationship in the very nature of things is one and indivisible. 9. Therefore, in the present facts and attending circumstances, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal, in the case at hand, would abate against the co-respondents, as a result of abatement against the deceased respondents No.1 and 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, as being abated. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 21st April, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)