49. In view of the objections that have been raised to the draft decree it is necessary to further explain the intention of the Court in the judgment. So far as Appeal No. 106 of 1918 is concerned it appears that the 49th respondent was an unnecessary party as the lower Court has found that he was not liable to repay any amount. It is admitted that no relief was claimed against him and that his name was included in the appeal by mistake. As he has had to come to Court to answer the appeal owing to appellant's fault he is entitled to some costs. We think in the circumstances that he should get half his costs in that appeal. So far as the other respondents are concerned their costs will be apportioned in accordance with the, amounts claimed.
50. The other question that is raised is with reference to the provisions of the lower Courts' decree regarding the jewels. These jewels having been sold defendant 4 had realized his money out of the sale and it is therefore useless to make any provision in the decree for what is to be done in case these jewels are redeemed either by defendant 1 or by the plaintiff. It is necessary therefore to strike out para. 2 of the decree up to the words 'till date of realization'. Clauses 5 and 6 must also be struck out.
51. The appellant in Appeal No. 4 of 1918 is reported to have died before the appeal came on for hearing. As the appeal was dismissed with costs the order will stand.
52. I agree and I have nothing to add.