Appeal against surviving respondents remains maintainable when a deceased pro forma party was not necessary for effective adjudication.

Where a respondent dies but was only a pro forma party and no substantive relief was claimed against him, the appeal does not automatically become incompetent. Applying the principles of Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 1 Rule 9 CPC, the appeal may proceed against the surviving respondents if the controversy can be effectively decided, the resulting decree would be workable, and no conflict would arise with a decree against the deceased party. On the facts, the deceased respondent was a surplus party and the appeal was fully maintainable against the remaining respondents. The finding of incompetence was therefore set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first appellate court was right in holding the appeal incompetent on account of the death of a pro forma respondent and the non-impleadment of his legal representatives, or whether the appeal could proceed against the surviving respondents and be decided on merits.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the effect of the death of a respondent against whom no substantive relief had been claimed and who had been impleaded only as a formal party. In such a situation, the governing principles under Order 22, Rule 4 and Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure are that the appeal does not automatically abate against the surviving respondents if the controversy can be effectively adjudicated between the appellant and the parties who remain before the court. The decisive considerations are whether the appeal is properly constituted against the surviving respondents, whether the decree that may follow would be effective, and whether any contradiction with a decree against the deceased respondent would arise. On the facts, the deceased respondent was a surplus party, no relief had been sought against him, and the appeal could be fully adjudicated against the remaining respondents.

Conclusion: The finding of incompetence was erroneous. The appeal was maintainable, the lower appellate court's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was restored to the first appellate court for a fresh adjudication on merits, with no final determination of the underlying title or tax-recovery dispute at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a deceased respondent is not a necessary party and effective relief can be granted against the surviving respondents, the appeal does not abate and must be decided on merits if the controversy remains properly constituted.

---