1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.137 of 1997 1. Asturan Devi, w/o Chhote Lal Sah, resident of village Bodhaiya Tola, Garahwa Bhogari, P.S. Majhaulia, District West Champaran. 2. Saraswati Devi, wife of Amala Sah, resident of village Nawada, District East Champaran. 3. Bhagmani Devi, wife of Daruna Prasad, resident of village & P.O. Jagdishpur, P.S. Nautan, District West Champaran. ….(Defendants 2nd Party-Respondents 2nd Party)-Appellants Versus 1. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, wife of Jagannath Sah, 2. Jagannath Sah, son of Jamuna Sah 3. Smt. Rajpati Devi, wife of Shambhu Sah 4. Shambhu Sah, son of Jamuna Sah. All residents of village Bela, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarhwa, District West Champaran. …..(Defendants-Appellants)- Respondents. 5. Jamuna Sah, son of Sheo Charan Sah, resident of village Gurchurwa P.O. and P.S. Majhaulia, District West Champaran. ….(Defendant 3rd Party-Respondents 3rd Party-Respondents. 6. Kanti Devi, W/o Satya Narain Prasad, resident of village Seemarhat, P.O. & P.S. Turkaulia, District East Champaran. 7. Santosh Sah 8. Pappu Sah Both sons of Chhote Lal Sah. 9. Smt. Pratima Devi, W/o Hari Shankar Sah, All residents of village Belwa , P.O. & P.S. Turkaulia, District East Champaran. ….(Defendants 4th Party-Respondents 4th party)-Respondednts. -------- For the appellants : M/s Sanjeev Ranjan and Gopal Prasad Singh,Advocates. For the respondents: M/s Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Ravi Shankar Dwivedi and Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adovates --------. 14/ 25.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is not in dispute that this second appeal has stood dismissed as against respondent no.7 Kanti Devi as far back as in January, 2004. 3. The suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, was filed by respondent no.1 (plaintiff) for declaring the deed of gift executed by the plaintiff with respect to the suit 2 property in favour of respondents no.2 and 4, who were defendants in the said suit. It is also not in dispute that the said donees sold a portion of the suit property to respondent no.7 by a registered deed. Hence, the right and title with regard to the said portion of the suit premises having been transferred to respondent no.7, she is a necessary party for the disposal of the second appeal. 4. The instant second appeal having been dismissed against respondent no.7, the impugned deed of gift with respect to that portion of the suit land, which was sold by the donees to respondent no.7, cannot be interfered with after abatement of the second appeal against respondent no.7. In the said circumstances, if this second appeal is allowed, there will be conflicting decrees with respect to different portions of the same impugned deed of gift, which cannot be legally allowed. 5. In the said circumstances, due to dismissal of this second appeal against respondent no.7, the entire second appeal has become infructuous and the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, this second is dismissed as a whole. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )