(Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, made in O.S.No.11991 of 2010, dated 21.03.2011.

Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, made in O.S.No.11991 of 2010, dated 21.03.2011.)

Common Judgment

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Challenging the decree and judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, in O.S.No.11991 of 2010, dated 21.03.2011, dismissing the suit for partition, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the Appeal in A.S.No.503 of 2011 and the defendants 1 and 3 in the suit have filed the Appeal in A.S.No.381 of 2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :

The suit properties were originally owned by one N.S.Kuppusamy Achari, who is grandfather of the plaintiff. He died on 05.07.1926 leaving behind his wife Maragathammal, one son namely Kumaraswamy Achari, and five daughters namely Meenakshi Ammal, Janaki Ammal, Savithiri Ammal, Kannammal and Visalakshi. The grandmother Maragathammal died on 21.12.1955. One of the daughters Kannammal died in the year 1926. Savithiri Ammal died on 08.03.1994 without any issues. Janaki Ammal died on 03.08.1986 leaving behind the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as legal heirs. Meenakshi Ammal died on 28.06.1986 leaving behind the defendants 2 and 3 as legal heirs. Visalakshi died in the year 1970 leaving behind her daughter Sakku Bai and the defendants 4 to 9 are the legal heirs of Sakkubai. Defendants 10 to 12 are the purchasers from the said Sakkubai and her husband Rajagopal.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property, after the death of the grandfather Kuppusamy Achari, came into the hands of his only son N.K.Kumaraswami Achari, who died intestate on 29.11.1971 leaving behind his wife Karpagambal and he had no issues. The said Karpagambal succeeded to the suit schedule property and was in possession and enjoyment of the properties till her life time. During her lifetime, she had entered into an agreement of sale on 09.06.1972 in favour of one Prakash Chand for sale of the suit schedule property. The defendants 4 to 9, who are the children of Sakkubai, are claiming right on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by their grandmother Karpagambal, wife of Kumaraswamy Achari, on 12.05.1972, in favour of their mother Sakkubai. According to the plaintiff, the husband of the beneficiary/Sakkubai, namely Rajagopal, has filed O.P.No.37 of 1973 before this Court for grant of probate of the Will dated 12.05.1972 and initially, the same was allowed. Later, on objection by the other parties, the same was converted into T.O.S.No.13 of 1973. Meanwhile, the agreement holder Prakash Chand filed a suit in C.S.No.292 of 1975 for specific performance to enforce the sale agreement dated 09.06.1972 and the said suit was decreed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. This Court, in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973, granted probate of the Will dated 12.05.1972, executed by Karpagambal. While granting probate in respect of the other properties under the Will of Karpagambal, this Court held that, since the testatrix has entered into a sale agreement in respect of the suit schedule property, the property has been adeemed and therefore, probate was not granted in respect of the suit schedule property alone. While so, as against the decree of specific performance granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the plaintiff herein filed an Appeal in O.S.A.No.53 of 1981 and Rajagopal, husband of Sakkubai, filed an Appeal in O.S.A.16 of 1982 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed O.S.A.No.53 of 1981, but allowed O.S.A.No.16 of 1982, thereby setting aside the decree of specific performance granted in favour of the agreement holder. The agreement holder took the matter on Appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.1423 of 1985, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and confirmed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, thus, ultimately, dismissing the suit for specific performance. After confirming the dismissal of the suit for specific performance, the executor of the Will Rajagopal filed an application bearing No.1572 of 1985 before the Probate Court to include the suit schedule property also in the probate proceedings. However, the same was dismissed by the Probate Court with an observation that only an Appeal can be filed against the probate order. Therefore, the executor filed an Appeal in O.S.A.No.98 of 1988 and the same was dismissed for default. Though an application was filed by the subsequent purchasers in C.M.P.No.2028 of 1992 to contest the said Appeal, their application was also dismissed, however, with liberty to work out their remedy. Later, they have not challenged that proceedings. Therefore, it is the contention of the plaintiff that, since the suit property was excluded from the probate granted in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973, the suit schedule property reverts back to the original sharers by virtue of reversionary rights and hence, the plaintiff, being one of the children of the daughter of the original ancestor, is entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. In this context, the plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming his ¼ share in the suit property.

5. The defendants 1 to 3 have filed a written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff.

6. Whereas, the subsequent purchaser from Sakkubai, viz., 10th defendant, has filed a written statement which was adopted by the defendants 11 and 12. According to them, the suit property belonged to one Kumaraswamy Achari, who died on 29.11.1971, leaving behind his wife Karpagambal as his sole surviving heir. After the death of the above said Kumaraswamy Achari, there was a family settlement between Karpagambal and the sisters of Kumaraswamy Achari and their legal heirs on 29.04.1972, under which, the suit property and certain other properties were allotted absolutely in favour of the above said Karpagambal. The said Karpagambal, by her Last Will and Testament dated 12.05.1972, bequeathed all her properties to her foster daughter Sakkubai and her daughter Rupavathy and appointed Sakkubai’s husband Rajagopal as executor of the Will. The said Karpagambal died on 28.07.1972. Originally, probate was granted in O.P.No.37 of 1973 in respect of the Will dated 12.05.1972 executed by Karpagambal. However, two of the sisters of Kumaraswamy Achari filed an application in A.No.902 of 1973 in O.P.No.37 of 1973 for revocation of the probate and therefore, the original petition was converted into T.O.S.No.13 of 1973, wherein, this Court has held that the Will executed by Karpagambal is valid and true and granted probate of the Will, however, excluded the suit property alone on the ground that there was a sale agreement executed by the testatrix Karpagambal in favour of one Prakash Chand on 09.06.1972. After the dismissal of the suit for specific performance filed by the agreement holder and the said dismissal being confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the executor of the Will filed an application bearing No.1572 of 1985 for inclusion of the suit property in the probate proceedings. The said application was dismissed by the Probate Court with an observation that only an Appeal can be preferred against the order passed in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973. Accordingly, an Appeal was preferred, however, the same was dismissed for default. However, the defendants 11 and 12 were granted liberty to resort to such legal action that are available under law. Sum and substance, it is their contention that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration from Sakkubai, who has got the suit property by way of the Will dated 12.05.1972, which has been proved and probated in the Court of Law and hence, they are the absolute owners of the suit property.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues :

                     1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit for partition ?

                     2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

                     3. Whether the defendants 1 to 3 are liable to render account with regard to the income derived from the plaint schedule property since 03.08.1996 the date of death of his mother ?

                     4. Whether defendants 10 to 12 namely HUF is a bona fide purchaser for consideration ?

                     5. Whether the ademption of legacy exists even after the dismissal of the S.L.P.No.1483 of 1985 against the order passed in O.S.A.No.53 of 1981 and 16 of 1982 in C.S.No.292 of 1975 ?

                     6. Whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants acted in collusion with the plaintiff ?

                     7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

                     8. To what relief the parties are entitled ?

8. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and no document was marked.

9. On appreciation of the entire evidence and the materials available on record, the trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011, dismissed the suit not only on the ground of limitation but also by answering all the other issues as against the plaintiff.

10. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the Appeal in A.S.No.503 of 2011 and the defendants 1 to 3 have filed the Appeal in A.S.No.381 of 2012.

11. During the pendency of the Appeal, the plaintiff/sole appellant in A.S.No.503 of 2011 died and his legal heirs have been brought on record as appellants 2 to 4 in A.S.No.503 of 2011.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants/legal heirs of the plaintiff in A.S.No.503 of 2011 mainly would submit that, admittedly, the properties belonged to one Kuppusamy Achari who died on 05.07.1926, leaving behind his wife Maragathammal, one son and five daughters. The only son also died issueless on 29.11.1971, leaving behind his wife Karpagambal, who died on 28.07.1972. It is his contention that, though the Will executed by the said Karpagambal during her lifetime has been proved in the probate proceedings, since Karpagambal entered into a sale agreement with one Prakash Chand on 09.06.1972 in respect of the suit property, the Probate Court has excluded the suit property alone, by holding that, since consideration is received by way of agreement, an ademption has taken place. Thus, the suit property is excluded from the probate proceedings. The learned counsel would further submit that, though later, an application bearing No.1572 of 1985 was filed by the executor of the Will to include the suit property, the same was dismissed by the Probate Court. Thereafter, though an Appeal was filed against the probate proceedings in O.S.A.No.98 of 1988, the said Appeal was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, it is his contention that, as long as there is no probate granted in respect of the suit property, despite the Will being found to be genuine, the plaintiff, being a co-sharer, is certainly entitled to a share in the property. According to him, before amendment of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, by way of Repealing and Amending Act, 2025, probate is mandatory for a person to assert any right over the immovable property. Therefore, when the Will of the said Karpagambal was the subject matter of probate proceedings and probate was not granted in respect of the suit property alone, the plaintiff, being the grandson through one of the daughters of the original ancestor namely Kuppusamy Achari, is certainly entitled to a share in the suit property. However, the trial Court has not gone into this aspect. Hence, he prays for grant of a preliminary decree in favour of the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff

13. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents 10 to 12 in A.S.No.503 of 2011/respondents 8 to 10 in A.S.No.381 of 2012/subsequent purchasers, would submit that, admittedly, the properties were in the hands of one Kumaraswamy Achari. Though the properties were ancestral in nature, after the death of the original ancestor in 1926, Kumaraswamy Achari being the sole coparcener, enjoyed the properties as absolute owner. He died on 29.11.1971 leaving behind his wife Karpagambal. Karpagambal, during her lifetime, executed a Will dated 12.05.1972. The Will became the subject matter of T.O.S.No.13 of 1973 and this Court has held that the Will has been validly executed. However, while granting probate, the Court has wrongly applied the principle of ademption on the basis of the alleged sale agreement said to have been entered into by the said Karpagambal in favour of one Prakash Chand. According to the learned counsel, the suit filed for specific performance to enforce the alleged sale agreement, though was originally decreed, later, was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.16 of 1982 and the dismissal has also been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is her contention that, once the alleged sale agreement is found to be false and has not been enforced, all the properties revert back to the original instrument, i.e., the Will. It is her contention that, when the entire instrument (Will) is found to be valid and the probate has been granted, now, the plaintiff cannot claim any share. The learned counsel would further submit that, admittedly, the suit property is the ancestral property and the plaintiff claims right through her mother, who is the daughter of the original ancestor. It is her contention that the original ancestor, though had five daughters, all the daughters died prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005). Such being the position, when the daughters were not alive as on the date of commencement of the Act 39 of 2005 to claim the benefit under the said Act, their children are also not entitled to claim any share in the properties. On that ground also, the plaintiff cannot have any right in the properties. It is her further contention that, even during the lifetime of Karpagambal, there was a partition deed entered into between the said Karpagambal and the sisters of her husband Kumaraswamy Achari in the year 1972, which has been held to be proved and a finding has been recorded in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973. Therefore, once the suit property has been allotted as per the family arrangement by way of registered deed in favour of the testatrix Karpagambal, which is accepted by all the parties and which is also found to be valid and accepted by the Court of law, it has to be held that it is the absolute property of the said Karpagambal. On that ground also, the plaintiff will not be entitled to any share in the suit property. Hence, it is her contention that the contesting respondents who are the bona fide purchasers from Sakkubai, who is the beneficiary of the Will validly executed by Karpagambal in respect of the suit property, which is her absolute property, are now the absolute owners of the suit property and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit for partition does not require any interference and hence, prays for dismissal of this Appeal.

14. In the light of the above submissions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows :

                     i. Whether the appellants/legal heirs of plaintiff are entitled to any share in the suit property ?

                     ii. When the Will of Karpagambal is held to be valid and the said finding has reached finality, whether mere existence of an agreement during the probate proceedings would amount to ademption ?

Point Nos.(i) and (ii) :

15. The relationship of the parties is not in dispute. The suit has been laid mainly on the ground that there is no probate granted in respect of the suit property and hence, the plaintiff, being a coparcener, is entitled to a share in the suit property.

16. The undisputed facts in this case are as follows :

                     (a) The original ancestor is one Kuppusamy Achari, who died in the year 1926, leaving behind his son Kumaraswamy Achari and five daughters. The said Kumaraswamy Achari died in the year 1971 leaving behind his wife Karpagambal. The said Karpagambal died in the year 1972.

                     (b) During her lifetime, the said Karpagambal executed a Will dated 12.05.1972 bequeathing her properties in favour of her foster daughter Sakkubai.

                     (c) The Will became subject matter in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973 and the Probate Court found the Will as true, valid and genuine and thus, granted probate of the Will. However, while granting probate, the Probate Court excluded the suit property from the probate proceedings on the ground that the testatrix Karpagambal had earlier entered into a sale agreement dated 09.06.1972 with one Prakash Chand and received consideration under the said agreement and hence, the suit property alone is adeemed.

                     (d) Meanwhile, the agreement holder Prakash Chand filed a suit for specific performance in C.S.No.292 of 1975 to enforce the sale agreement said to have been executed by Karpagambal. Though the learned Single Judge of this Court decreed the suit, on Appeal in O.S.A.No.16 of 1982, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the dismissal of the suit for specific performance has reached finality.

                     (e) Thereafter, when the executor of the Will filed an application bearing No.1572 of 1985 to include the suit property in the probate proceedings, the Probate Court dismissed the said application on the ground that only an Appeal has to be filed. Accordingly, the Appeal filed in O.S.A.No.98 of 1988 was also dismissed for default.

17. It is relevant to note that the probate proceedings was contested very hotly. Though there were various defence taken in the probate proceedings by all the parties, very conveniently, the judgment in the probate proceedings in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973 has not been filed before the trial Court. While hearing the Appeals, we summoned the original judgment in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973. On a perusal of the said judgment, since the same is also between the inter se parties, including the plaintiff’s mother and the sisters of her husband and her legal heirs and there was also a specific issue raised therein in respect of the suit property, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973 has to be marked as an Exhibit in this case. Since the probate proceedings and the judgment therein is not in dispute, no objection is raised by the parties for marking the same and hence, no oral evidence is required. Accordingly, a copy of the judgment in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973, dated 29.07.1980, is marked as a Court Exhibit - Ex.C1.

18. It is the only contention of the plaintiff that, as long as there is no probate granted in respect of the suit property, by way of reversionary rights, the property goes to the other co-sharers and accordingly, the plaintiff, being the grandson born through one of the daughters of the original ancestor, is entitled to share.

19. We have perused the entire materials. On the admitted facts, it can be seen that the entire properties are ancestral properties and after the death of the original ancestor Kuppusamy Achari, the entire properties came into the hands of his only son Kumaraswamy Achari, since he was the only coparcener at the time of his death. After the death of the said Kumaraswamy Achari in the year 1971, i.e., after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his wife Karpagambal, being Class-I legal heir, succeeded to the properties of her husband under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The said Karpagambal also died in the year 1972, leaving behind a Will dated 12.05.1972 in favour of her foster/adopted daughter Sakkubai and her daughter Rupavathy. The Will was, in fact, subject matter in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973. The learned Single Judge of this Court, in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973, on a threadbare analysis, has held that the Will executed by Karpagambal is valid and genuine. Once the validity of the Will is upheld in the Court proceedings, now, it is too late to dispute the said Will.

20. Now, the partition is claimed mainly on the ground that the Probate Court has excluded the suit property as adeemed and hence, probate is not granted in respect of the suit property and hence, by way of reversionary rights, the property has gone to the other legal heirs and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit property. It is relevant to note that the Probate Court has excluded the suit property from granting probate mainly on the ground that there was an agreement entered into by the testatrix Karpagambal in favour of one Prakash Chand on 09.06.1972. It is relevant to note that the said agreement was subject matter of the suit for specific performance in C.S.No.292 of 1975. Though the learned Single Judge has decreed the suit for specific performance, on appeal in O.S.A.No.16 of 1982, the Division Bench of this Court has set aside the decree and judgment granting specific performance and the Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.No.1423 of 1985 filed by the agreement holder has also been dismissed, confirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the suit filed to enforce the so-called sale agreement said to have been executed by Karpagambal, is ultimately dismissed. Therefore, we are of the view that the ademption, as held by the learned Single Judge in the probate proceedings, has not taken place. In fact, what was existing at the relevant point of time was a mere agreement for sale, which was put to enforcement. It is well settled law that mere agreement for sale does not create any interest or right over the immovable property. Though such agreement is capable of enforcement, in the present case, its enforcement is also denied in the Court, and in fact, the Division Bench of this Court has found that the agreement is not genuine and true and that could not have been executed by Karpagambal. Therefore, the very execution of the agreement by the said Karpagambal is doubted by this Court. Such being the position, when the alleged sale agreement was found to be obtained by some other means and created without the knowledge of the original owner, there cannot be any ademption in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the alleged sale agreement. The principle of ademption will apply only when any property bequeathed by the testator/testatrix does not belong to the testator/testatrix at the time of his/her death, or has been converted into property of a different kind. Whereas, in the present case, when the very sale agreement said to have been executed by Karpagambal has not been established and in fact, it is found to be a fabricated one, the question of applying the principle of ademption does not arise at all.

21. Be that as it may. The said finding has not been gone into by the Division Bench of this Court. In fact, since the learned Single Judge has found that the Will is genuine, the Division Bench has refrained itself from going into the merits of the findings recorded with regard to other aspects in the probate proceedings. It is also well settled that, in probate proceedings, the Court will not normally venture into the title. What is looked into is the execution of the Will for grant of probate. Therefore, once title cannot be decided by the Probate Court, merely because the suit property has been excluded from the probate proceedings, now, it cannot be said that the property is available for partition.

22. It is relevant to note that, after various litigations with regard to enforcement of the so-called sale agreement relied upon by Prakash Chand reached finality, the executor of the Will filed an application bearing No.1572 of 1985 before the Probate Court to include the present suit property in the probate proceedings. However, the said application has been dismissed only on the ground of maintainability. While dismissing the application, this Court has held that only an Appeal will lie, not an application. Therefore, only on technical grounds, that application has been non-suited. Thereafter, an Appeal has also been filed by the executor in O.S.A.No.98 of 1988. The said Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, but not on merits. In the same Appeal, the subsequent purchasers also filed an application in C.M.P.No.2028 of 1992 to contest the Appeal. However, this Court, while dismissing the Appeal for default, has granted liberty to the subsequent purchasers to resort to such legal action that are available under law. Therefore, once liberty is also granted by the Division Bench to resort to such legal action that are available under law, the subsequent purchasers can very well canvass their case on merits as defendants in the present suit and establish their right under law. It is not necessary that they should also file separate proceedings.

23. When merely on technical aspect, the suit property was not included in the probate proceedings on the ground that there was an agreement already entered into by the testatrix, which agreement was later found to be fabricated and non-suited in the Court of law, now, it cannot be said that the property has been adeemed and not available for probate and the plaintiff is entitled for partition. It is relevant to note that probate proceedings mainly relates to testing of the validity of the Will executed by persons in sound state of mind. “Probate” as per Section 2(f) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, means a copy of a Will certified under the seal of a Court of competent jurisdiction with a grant of administration to the estate of the testator. What is validated in the probate proceedings is the instrument of the Will. When the learned Single Judge has, on threadbare analysis, found that the Will was validly executed by the testatrix while she was in sound state of mind and the validity of the instrument has been upheld, we are of the view that the Will shall be in respect of all the properties bequeathed under the Will. Therefore, now, it is too late for the plaintiff to contend that he is entitled to share.

24. It is further to be noted that, when the Court has found that the agreement said to have been executed by the testatrix in favour of Prakash Chand is not genuine, Section 164 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, will come into play. Once any change takes place in respect of the property without the knowledge or sanction of the testator, legacy will not be adeemed. In such view of the matter, merely a finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that there was an ademption, which in our view, has not even taken place, cannot be taken advantage by the plaintiff. Therefore, we are of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit property.

25. Further, it is relevant to note that the suit property and other properties have been allotted to Karpagambal in a partition arrangement entered into between the parties, including the mother of the plaintiff and others, dated 29.04.1972, which was marked as Ex.D10 in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973, which has been clearly proved and a finding has been recorded in the judgment in T.O.S.No.13 of 1973. Only thereafter, the Will has been executed by the Karpagambal based on her allotment. After her death, the Will has also been held to be valid by the Court of Law as per the probate proceedings. Now that, an amendment has been brought in Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025, dispensing with the probate for the Will executed in the metropolitan cities, which amendment came into force with effect from 20.12.2025. As discussed, earlier, since the ademption as held by the Probate Court has not been taken place, neither the plaintiff nor his legal heirs (appellants herein) can claim any share in the suit property. Further, it is also to be noted that the plaintiff’s mother was a contesting defendant in the testamentary proceedings, wherein, the validity of the Will has been upheld. However, she has not challenged that finding. Therefore, any finding with regard to the Will is certainly binding on the plaintiff also.

26. Further, it is also relevant to note that, admittedly, the plaintiff’s mother and her sisters, viz., all the five daughters of the original ancestor Kuppusamy Achari, died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005). When the daughters had already died and were not alive on the date of commencement of the Act 39 of 2005, i.e., 09.09.2005, they cannot claim the benefit under the Act nor the plaintiff, as legal heir of one of the daughters, can seek any share in the property. This legal position has been upheld even in the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Iyyanar and others v. Kalvikarasi and others [A.S.No.540 of 2024, dated 24.07.2026]. On that ground also, we find that there is no merit in the Appeal. Accordingly, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered against the appellant.

27. Hence, we do not find any merit in the Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal in A.S.No.503 of 2011 is dismissed. The other Appeal in A.S.No.381 of 2012 is filed by the defendants 1 to 3, who are also the legal heirs born through the other daughter of the original ancestor and stand on the same footing as that of the plaintiff. Though the original plaintiff who is arrayed as 10th respondent in the said Appeal in A.S.No.381 of 2012 had died, the appellant has not taken steps to implead the legal heirs and even there is no representation for the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 in A.S.No.381 of 2012. In view of the judgment passed in A.S.No.503 of 2011, we find no merit in the connected Appeal also in A.S.No.381 of 2012. Accordingly, the Appeal in A.S.No.381 of 2012 is also dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.