Case: S. Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by Lrs. &amp; Others Vs. Smt. Pramod Gupta (dead) by Lrs. &amp; Others

2. On 14.8.2002, this Court allowed the applications filed in C.A. Nos.of 1992 and Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.of 1991 for substitution and condonation of delay in filing the applications for substitution in respect of some of the respondents, who died during the pendency of these appeals. In the light of the above, all other applications filed for substitution and condonation of delay of one or the other parties in the above matters by the respective Counsel for the appellants are also allowed. After the hearing was completed and orders have been reserved, it appears that the heirs of one late Sultan Singh alias Ishwar Singh claiming to be interested in the compensation but admittedly was not a party (the late Sultan Singh himself) either before the Reference Court or the High Court, have filed applications to be impleaded as necessaryst of the applicants was himself not a party at any stage of the proceedings before the Courts below, we see no justification to entertain their claim for coming on record at this stage of the proceedings. These unnumbered applications filed by Col. Mohinder Singh Malik and three others are, therefore, rejected. Having regard to the orders passed already, and the fact that the necessary legal representatives of all parties, who died during the pendency of the matters in this Court, have come on record, the benefit of the same will enure to the appellants in C.A. Nos.of 1992. The fact that the applications filed therein, earlier were not pressed and disposed of as such, will not come in the way of those appeals also being heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with law, alongwith the other appeals.3. An extent of about 5500 bighas of land described as ‘gain mumkin(uncultivable mountainous area) situated at Masudpur Village within the Union Territory of Delhi was acquired by the Government for planned development of Delhi. Notifications were issued(1) on 24.10.1961 for acquisition of 720 bighas and 4 biswas out of 4307 bighas and 18 biswas under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as theIt may be stated at this stage itself that an extent of 390 bighas of land notified on 24.10.1961 and acquired by passing the award in Award No. 1944 does not form the subjectmatter of these proceedings. Declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued on 6.8.1966. In the course of the Award enquiry claims were filed before the Land Acquisition Collector by three categories of claimants as hereunderClaims by the Union of India and Gaon Sabha that the lands acquired stood vested with the Gaon Sabha they being ‘wasteunder Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. This claim proceeded on the basis that not only it was ‘wastebut also the Bhumidari Certificate issued in favour of Smt. Gulab Sundari was invalid and non est in law;(ii) The other class of claims were from theon the basis that the acquired land was notas defined under Section 3(13) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, since they were being used forpurposes, and therefore, they neither could be said to be ‘wastenor could be held to have vested in the Gaon Sabha, for either of them to claim any title to the lands in question and, therefore, they continued to be proprietors of the soil and as such entitled to the compensation for themselves; and(iii) Yet another claim was from Smt. Gulab Sundari and her transferees of portions of the rights over the land on the ground that she was the Bhumidar of the land measuring about 4307 bigha and 18 biswas and those lands were part of her Bhumidari holding out which she also claimed to have transferred rights in an extent of 3500 bighas of undivided holding in favour of the other private respondents/claimants.By another Notification dated 23.1.1965 under Section 4 of the Act, an extent of 3224 bigha and 24 biswas out of the total extent of 4307 bighas and 18 biswas was notified for acquisition, followed by the issue of a Declaration under Section 6. In respect of these acquired lands also, the above three categories of claims came to be made. It may also be stated that the individual claims made by persons other than the Union of India and Gaon Sabha were in respect of specified shares, though over the total extent involved.5. Award No. 2040 dated 1.12.1967 came to be passed in respect of lands covered by the Notification dated 24.10.1961 measuring about 720 bighas and 4 biswas. Since competing claims, though in respect of only their respective shares were made by them to the exclusion of others as far as their shares are concerned, the Land Acquisition Collector while awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,79,932.10, made a reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act for apportionment of the same to the Court of District Judge. Likewise, in respect of lands acquired under Notification dated 23.1.1965 measuring about 3224 bighas and 2 biswas. Award No. 2225 dated 26.3.1969 came to be passed for a sum of Rs. 22,27,867.69 and a similar reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) also came to be made, having regard to the disputed nature of competing claims. Smt. Gulab Sundari, claiming exclusive Bhumidar rights in respect of the entire area, moved applications under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, for getting impleaded to the proceedings on the plea that she had not sold any part of her rights to any one, that she had been defrauded to sign those documents, which are not valid or binding on her and she alone was entitled to the entire compensation as Bhumidar to the exclusion of all including those who sought to assert claim was Vendees from her. The Gaon Sabha of the Village also filed applications claiming the entire compensation on the ground that the land as per the entries in the Jamabandi vested in the Gaon Sabha as per the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act. All such claims, made by different class and category of claimants, came to be combined and consolidated and taken up for consideration. The learned Additional District Judge (Shri P.L. Singla), who tried the references together, on a consideration of the materials placed on record, held as followsThe lands in question werewithin the meaning of Section 3(13) of the Land Reforms Act;(b) The Bhumidari Certificate/Declaration granted in favour of Smt. Gulab Sundari was valid, legal and within jurisdiction and the transfers made by her in favour of some of the other respondents are also valid;(c) The Owners/Proprietors were legally barred from challenging or disputing the Bhumidari Certificate issued in favour of Smt. Gulab Sundari;(d) Since the Proprietors were notof the land in question, their proprietary/ownership rights stood abolished under the Land Reforms Act;(e) That the Bhumidari Certificate issued in favour of Smt. Gulab Sundari stood immune from challenge in view of Section 4 of the Delhi Land Reforms (Amendment) Act1 of 1996, which Act having also been placed in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India;(f) The rights and claims made by the Proprietors were also barred by limitation;(g) The lands were not ‘wasteand, therefore, did not vest in them as claimed by the Union of India and the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, they have no rights or interest in the lands in question; and(h) The claims of Union of India and Gaon Sabha are also barred by res judicata. Consequently, the compensation was awarded to the Bhumidar and the transferees from Bhumidar, to the exclusion of the Proprietors, Gaon Sabha and the Union of India.Thereupon, about 63 Proprietors joined together and filed RFA No. 309 of 1980 (arising out of the reference made in respect of Award No. 2040) and RFA No. 310 of 1980 (arising out of reference in respect of Award No. 2225) before the Delhi High Court. Another set of 10 Proprietors seem to have filed RFA No. 356 of 1980 (in respect of claims arising out of Award No. 2040) and RFA No. 357 of 1980 (in respect of claims arising out of Award No. 2225) before the Delhi High Court. The Gaon Sabha and Union of India seem to have filed RFA No. 340 of 1980 and RFA No. 341 of 1980, likewise. It is stated that about 37 Proprietors, who filed claims before the Reference Court, did not pursue their claims by filing any appeals before the High Court and these persons were not parties to the proceedings before the High Court in any other capacity also.7. It appears that during the pendency of these appeals, about 5 appellants in RFA No. 309 of 1980 and RFA No. 310 of 1980 died on different dates and there was no attempt to take any steps within time for bringing on record the legal representatives of those five deceased appellants either at the instance of the remaining appellants or the legal heirs of the deceased appellants. On 8.12.1986, the respondents herein seem to have filed applications in RFA Nos. 309 of 1980 and 310 of 1980 seeking for the dismissal of those appeals, as having been abated due to failure in bringing on record the legal representatives of the five deceased appellants and also further seeking for the dismissal of RFA Nos. 356 of 1980 and 357 of 1980 on the ground that they are not properly constituted and incompetent for the reason that the connected appeals RFA Nos. 309 and 310 of 1980 having abated, the other appeals involving common questions of fact and law cannot be proceeded with, resulting into any conflicting, inconsistent or contradictory decrees. At that stage, on or about 2.3.1987 applications seem to have been filed by the heirs of the deceased parties themselves for bringing them on record as the legal representatives of the deceased appellants.8. The three sets of appeals, numbering about six in all, were taken up for final hearing, as also those applications along with the appeals. The applications for condonation of the delay in seeking to set aside the abatement were rejected, and it is claimed that even the Counsel for the appellants conceded that there was no sufficient cause for the same. The plea on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the appeals merely partially abated qua the deceased appellants only and not in toto did not meet acceptance with the Court. On the view that in such circumstances the appeals were incompetent and not validly constituted the entirety of the appeals RFA Nos. 309 and 310 of 1980 were held to abate in toto and rejected the same. Since common and same questions were raised in the other appeals, RFA Nos. 356 and 357 of 1980 were also dismissed, likewise. The appeals filed by the Gaon Sabha and Union of India were dismissed on the ground that they were barred by res judicata. Hence, the above appeals.9. One of the respondents by name Bhim Singh had died on 8.10.1988, even when the appeals were pending before the High Court. One Ahsan Ullah anotherKochar died on 12.10.1982 and one Mohanlal also died during the pendency of these proceedings. As noticed supra, applications for bringing on their legal representatives and connected applications were already allowed.10. A brief reference to the history of the lands and the role of the parties concerned with them would be necessary to highlight the nature of the claims and the need for an effective and objective consideration and determination of the same on merits, in accordance with law. The lands in question, in which the various Proprietors in the village held distinct, separate and independent shares, were leased out on 15.11.1939 by the Proprietors under a Registered Lease Deed in favour of Delhi Pottery Works for a period of twenty years for exploiting minerals. The lands were said to be otherwise not fit or capable of any cultivation. The said lessees seem to have sublet the same on 23.5.1942 in favour of partnership firm of Kota in Rajasthan, known asBahadur Seth Kesari Singh Budhfor the remaining period of seventeen years from 18.4.1942 to 17.4.1959.11. On 10.5.1951, one Smt. Gulab Sundari claimed to have been inducted as the third partner in thefirm and thereafter on 17.10.1951, an alleged dissolution of the partnership was said to have taken place as evidenced by a supplementary deed of dissolution said to have been executed on 27.8.1953 (unregistered) allotting the rights of the partnership firm under the Miningdated 23.5.1942, to Smt. Gulab Sundari. Claiming to have secured a Bhumidari Certificate under the Land Reforms Act, she seems to have filed a Civil Suit No. 174 of 1959 seeking for cancellation of the proceedings vesting the lands in the Gaon Sabha, on the basis that she continued to be Bhumidar. The said suit seems to have been decreed on 12.12.1966 and the appeals preferred by the Gaon Sabha and the Union of India were also said to have been dismissed, though the question as to whether the proceedings in which she claimed to have been accorded Bhumidar rights is illegal or legal was actually left open undecided and as irrelevant for the said litigation. Taking advantage of the above alone, the said Gulab Sundari seems to have got impleaded as a claimant in the proceedings before the Reference Court, for apportionment of the compensation awarded, among herself and her alienees. She also seems to have initially questioned the alienations made by her as being vitiated due to undue influence and fraud alleged to have been practised on her. But, subsequently on 27.7.1969, such alienees and Mrs. Gulab Sundari appear to have entered into a compromise and the same was also said to have been filed before the Reference Court on 31.7.1969, resulting in those persons also making their claims before the Court. On 17.10.1969, Gulab Sundari seems to have filed a fresh claim statement claiming 3/16th share of the compensation leaving the remaining 13/16th share in favour of those sixteen persons.12. It may be stated that the Additional District Judge, Delhi, decided the references on 20.5.1980 and the appeals before the High Court were filed against the said decision. During the pendency of the appeals before the High Court, the following appellants in RFA Nos. 309 and 310 of 1980 were said to have died, as noticed below :—S. No.Name of the appellant and rankdate ofMukhtiar Singh (A. No. 19)24.6.19822.Shri Chandgi Ram (A. No. 31)1.4.19813.Shri Amichand (A. No. 55)21.2.19844.Shri Chhelu (A. No. 56)28.4.19835.Shri Balbir (A. No.for impleading their legal representatives were said to have been filed on 2.3.1987. These applications were rejected as belated and that no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the delay. The plea of partial abatement, if at all, of appeals qua only those deceased appellants was not accepted by the High Court and on the view that the decree was joint based upon common right and interest, the appeals were rejected in toto, as noticed supra.

Reasoning:
29. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side. The consideration by the High Court seems to be too superficial on the basis of certain abstract principles without particular reference to the nature and character of the proceedings, the nature of claims and rights of parties, the statutory obligations cast on the Courts dealing with a reference under Section 30/31 originating from an Award under Section 11 of the Act and the source as well as origin of rights of the claimants. The Land Acquisition Collector empowered under the Act to pass the Award was not only obliged to, among other things, determine the total compensation to be allowed for the land but also apportion the said compensation among all the persons interested in the land depending upon their respective interest proportionately, whether they have appeared or not before him. If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Land Acquisition Collector is obliged to refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. If the amount could not be disbursed at his level due to any one or the other reasons set out in Section 31, the amount has to be deposited in the Court to which normally a reference would be submitted. The claim of each one was in respect of his distinct, definite and separate share and their respective rights are notbut independent. Among themselves there is no conflicting or overlapping interest and the grant of relief to one has no adverse impact on the other(s). The mere fact that there was no division by metes and bounds on state of ground is no reason to treat it to be a jointin nature to be asserted or vindicated only by all of them joining together in the same proceedings, in one capacity or the other. As a matter of fact separate claims seem to have been filed by them before the Reference Court in respect of their own respective share. Even if they have engaged a common Counsel or even if they have filed one claim in respect of their specified separate share, it could not have the effect of altering the nature of their claim or the character of their right so as to make it an indivisible joint right. Though the Reference Court has decided all such claims together, having regard to the similarity or identical nature of issues arising for consideration of the claims, in substance and reality the proceedings must be considered in law to be of multifarious claims disposed of in a consolidated manner resulting in as many number of Awards of the Reference Court as there were claimants before it. There was no community of interest between them and that each one of them in vindicating their individual rights was not obliged to implead the other claimants of their shares in one common action/proceeding and the orders/judgment though passed in a consolidated manner, in law, amounts to as many orders or judgments as there were claimants and, by no reason, it can be branded to be a joint and inseverable one. Similarity of the claims cannot be a justification in law to treat them as a single and indivisible claim, for any or all purposes and such a thing cannot be legitimately done without sacrificing the substance to the form.30. The claim on behalf of the respondents that the compensation awarded is of a lumpsum, though shares are divided, is belied by the scheme underlying Sections 11, 18, 30 and 31 of the Act, and cannot be countenanced as of any merit. Against the Award of the Reference Court in this case, it was possible and permissible in law for everyone of the appellants to file an appeal of his own separately in respect of his share without any need or obligation to implead every other of the claimants like him as party respondent or asbecause there is no conflicting interest of claims amongst them, inter se. As such, the alleged and apprehended fear about possible inconsistent or conflicting decrees resulting therefrom if the appeals are proceeded with and disposed of on merits has no basis in law nor well founded on the facts and circumstances of these cases. Even if the appellants succeed on merits, de hors the fate of the deceased appellants the decree passed cannot either said to become ineffective or rendered incapable of successful execution.31. To surmise even then a contradictory decree coming into existence, is neither logic nor reason or acceptable by Courts of Law. Otherwise, it would amount to applying the principle of vicarious liability to penalize someone for no fault of his and denial of ones own right for the mere default or refusal of the other(s) to join or contest likewise before the Court. The fact that at a given point of time all of them joined in one proceedings because one Court in the hierarchy has chosen to club or combine all their individual and separate claims for purpose of consideration on account of the similarity of the nature of their claims or that for the sake of convenience they joined together for asserting their respective, distinct and independent claims or rights is no ground to destroy their individual right to seek remedies in respect of their respective claims. In cases of the nature, there is every possibility of one or the other among them subsequently reconciling themselves to their fate and settle with their opponents or become averse to pursue the legal battle forever so many reasons, as in the case on hand due to disinterestedness, indifference or lethargy and, therefore, the attitude, approach and resolve of one or the other should not become a disabling or disqualifying factor for others to vindicate their own individual rights without getting eclipsed or marred by the action or inaction of the others. Consequently, the fact that about 37 out of the total number of interested persons, like the appellants, were not parties before the High Court or this Court, does not, in any manner, affect or deprive the appellants to have their claims, duly and properly considered and adjudicated in accordance with law, on merits.31. Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. A careful reading of the provisions contained in Order 22 of CPC as well as the subsequent amendments thereto would lend credit and support to the view that they were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination into an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the proceedings and therebythe others similarly placed as long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim remain in tact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order 22 are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice. The fact that the Khata was said to be joint is of no relevance, as long as each one of them had their own independent, distinct and separate shares in the property as found separately indicated in Jamabandhi itself of the shares of each of them distinctly. We are also of the view that the High Court should have, on the very perception it had on the question of abatement, allowed the applications for impleadment even de hors the cause for the delay in filing the applications keeping in view the serious manner it would otherwise jeopardize an effective adjudication on merits, the rights of other remaining appellants for no fault of them. Interests of justice would have been better served had the High Court adopted a positive and constructive approach than merely scuttle the whole process to foreclose an adjudication of the claims of others on merits. The rejection by the High Court of the applications to set aside abatement, condonation and bringing on record the legal representatives does not appear, on the peculiar nature of the case, to be just or reasonable exercise of thepower or in conformity with the avowed object of Court to do real, effective and substantial justice. Viewed in the light of the fact that each one of the appellants had an independent and distinct right of his own notupon the one or the other of the appellants, the dismissal of the appeals by the High Court in their entirety does not constitute a sound, reasonable or just and proper exercise of its powers. Even if it has to be viewed that they had a common interest, then the interests of jutice would require the remaining other appellants being allowed to pursue the appeals for the benefit of those others, who are not before the Court also and not stultify the proceedings as a whole andthe others, as well.32. The principles laid down or the ratio of the decision in Ramcase (supra), will not apply to the case on hand. As indicated earlier, the real decision in a given case would ultimately depend very much on the facts of that particular case, the nature of the right sought to be asserted and relief sought. The suit was filed in that case by some four persons asserting a right ofclaiming that they are the nearest collaterals of the vendor and heirs according to rule of succession. The sale was found to be of one entire set of properties to be enjoyed by two sets of vendees in equal shares. Since the position of law was held to be clear that there can be no partialion is the substitution of thein place of the vendee, the Court felt that two conflicting decrees were bound to result, if the appeal has to be allowed in favour of the other remaining appellants, in the teeth of the abatement of the appeal as against the deceased appellants and the decree in respect of him having become final. It is for this reason that the decree in that case was held to be a joint one and, therefore, when a part of it has become final by reason of abatement, the entire appeal was held to have abated, relying upon the decision in Jhanda Singh v. Gurmukh Singh & Ors. (supra). The Constitution Bench, which rendered the decision in Ramcase (supra), was neither concerned with any reconciliation of conflicting views on the point nor declare the correct position of law on this aspect, for the simple reason that the matter was before the Constitution Bench only on the question of constitutional validity of Section 15 of the PunjabAct, 1913, and that the appeal (C.A. No. 214/1961) was dismissed as having abated in view of the earlier unreported decision dated 10.4.2002 in C.A. No. 344/1956 (Jhandacase) rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges, without any further reference either to the other decisions striking a different note or undertaking any exercise, of the nature now before us in the light of a specific reference madeassumption in Jhandacase (supra) as though this Court in Nathucase, as a matter of general principle held that specification of shares does not affect the nature of the decree, cannot be considered to be the correct position emerging on a proper appreciation of the decision in Nathucase (supra). It was, at any rate, observed in this decision also that the nature and extent of abatement in a given case and the decision to be taken thereon will depend upon the facts of each case and, therefore, no exhaustive statement can be made either way and that the decision will ultimately depend upon the fact whether the decree obtained was a joint decree or a separate one. This question, in our considered view, cannot and should not also be decided merely on the format of the decree under challenge or it being one or the manner in which it was dealt with before or by the Court, which passed it.The question, therefore, as to when a proceeding before the Court becomes or rendered impossible or possible to be proceeded with after it had partially abated on account of the death of one or the other party on either side has been always considered to depend upon the fact as to whether the decree obtained is a joint decree or a severable one and that in case of a joint and inseverable decree if the appeal abated against one or the other, the same cannot be proceeded with further for or against the remaining parties as well. If otherwise, the decree is a joint and several or separable one, being in substance and reality a combination of many decrees, there can be no impediment for the proceedings being proceeded with among or against those remaining parties other than the deceased. As observed in Nathucase (supra) itself, 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 aas a result of abatement against the deceased respondent. The same would be the position of an appealthe appellants, as in the other cases. Order 22 Rule 4 also was considered not to provide for abatement of the appeal(s) against theof the deceased respondent and it was specifically observed therein that to say that the appeals against them also abated in certain circumstances is not a correct statement. It was held that the appeals against such other respondents cannot be proceeded against and, therefore, had to be dismissed, in certain circumstances.37. But, in our view also, as to what those circumstances are to be, cannot be exhaustively enumerated and no hard and fast rule for invariable application can be devised. With the march and progress of law, the new horizons explored and modalities discerned and the fact that the procedural laws must be liberally construed to really serve as handmaid, make it workable and advance the ends of justice, technical objections which tend to be stumbing blocks to defeat and deny substantial and effective justice should be strictly viewed for being discouraged, except where the mandate of law, inevitably necessitates it. Consequently, having regard to the nature of the proceedings under the Act and the purpose of reference proceedings and the appeal therefrom, the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in the matter of condonation of the delay as well as the considerations which should weigh in adjudging nature of the decree, i.e., whether it is joint and inseverable or joint and severable or separable.38. The fact that the Reference Court has chosen to pass a decree jointly in the matters before us is and should be no ground by itself to construe the decree to be joint and inseparable. At times, as in the cases on hand, the Court for its convenience might have combined the claims for joint consideration on account of similar nature of the issues in all such cases and for that reason the parties should not be penalized, for no fault of them. Actus cuirae neminem gravabit (an act of Court shall prejudice no one) is the maxim of law, which comes into play in such situations. Number of people, more for the sake of convenience, may be counselled to join together to ventilate, all their separate but similar nature of claims and this also should not result in the claims of all such others being rejected merely because one or the other of such claims by one or more of the parties abated on account of death and consequent omission to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased party. At times one or the other parties on either side in a litigation involving several claims or more than one, pertaining to their individual rights may settle among themselves the dispute to the extent of their share or proportion of rights are concerned and may drop out of contest, bringing even the proceedings to a conclusion so far as they are concerned. If all such move is allowed to boomerang adversely on the rights of the remaining parties even to contest and have their claims adjudicated on merits, it would be a travesty of administration of justiceregard to the peculiar facts and circumstances noticed by us that the claimants appellants have each their own distinct, separate and independent rights, the principles enumerated in Hariharcase (supra) and Indian Oxygen Ltd. case (supra) squarely apply with all force. The appeals even de hors the claims of the deceased and others who have not chosen to approach the High Court or this Court, were neither rendered incapable of consideration nor impossible of according any relief or could be held difficult to enforce the decree that may be passed, in favour of the remaining appellants without suffering the vice of inconsistency. Even if it is likely to result in two different sets of judgments of varying content, purport or reason, as long as the enforcement of the decrees passed therein are not rendered impossible due to mutual contradiction in terms ofnature, there is no justification whatsoever to assume them to be inconsistent or contradictory decrees, at all. The mere fact that in a set of similar or identical nature of cases two different nature or type of decrees was necessitated is no reason to treat them to be inconsistent or contradictory decrees, so long as both can be executed and enforced without either of them being destructive of the other. Contradictory or inconsistent decrees, consequently, could be held to have resulted only in a given case when the relief granted in one cannot be enforced/realized without denying the relief in the other or totally nullifying or setting at naught the relief granted in the other, and in no other class of cases.In the light of the above discussion, we holdWherever the plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are found to have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own and for purpose of convenience or otherwise, joined together in a single litigation to vindicate their rights, the decree passed by the Court thereon is to be viewed in substance as the combination of several decrees in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree. The same would be the position in the case of defendants or respondents having similar rights contesting the claims against them.(2) Whenever different and distinct claims of more than one are sought to be vindicated in one single proceedings, as the one now before us, under the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings and/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are clubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the Courts concerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should be treated as a mere combination of several decrees in favour of or against one or more of the parties and not as joint and inseparable decrees.(3) The mere fact that the claims or rights asserted or sought to be vindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by joining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular nature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as joint claims, so as to render the judgment or decree passed thereon a joint and inseverable one.(4) The question as to whether in a given case the decree is joint and inseverable or joint and severable or separable has to be decided, for the purposes of abatement or dismissal of the entire appeal as not being properly and duly constituted or rendered incompetent for being further proceeded with, requires to be determined only with reference to the fact as to whether the judgment/decree passed in the proceedingsthe remaining parties would suffer the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees. For that reason, a decree can be said to be contradictory or inconsistent with another decree only when the two decrees are incapable of enforcement or would be mutuallyand that the enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other.The Award/decrees, which were theof challenge before the High Court, in these cases, viewed in the light of the above conclusions, would not render them to be a joint and inseparable decree but in substance a mere combination of several decrees depending upon the number of claimants before the Court and, therefore, joint and several or separablethe individual or their claims concerned. Consequently, even the abatement of the appeal in the High Court in respect of one or other of the appellants cannot by itself result in the abatement of the appeal in its entirety or render it liable to be dismissed as not duly or properly constituted or not possible to be proceededconclusions to the contrary arrived at by the High Court and liable to be and are hereby set aside. That apart, since we have also arrived at a conclusion that the rejection of the applications by the High Court was erroneous, the orders passed by the High Court in this regard also are set aside and the legal representatives of the deceased appellants before the High Court are directed to be brought on record in the appeals before the High Court.43. For all the reasons stated above, we are unable to approve the decision or the manner of disposal given by the High Court in these cases, which resulted in grave injustice to the remaining appellants in denying them of their right to have an adjudication of their claims on merits. The High Court ought to have condoned the delay as prayed for, keeping in view the pendency of the main appeals on its file, adopting a liberal and reasonable approach, which would have facilitated an effective adjudication of the rights of parties on either side, avoiding summary rejection of the appeals in entirety.