( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Ranga reddy dated 7-6-1993 rendered in A. S. No. 20 of 1991 under which the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 17-6-1991 in O. S. No. 160 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, West and South, R. R. District decreeing the suit was set aside resulting in dismissal of the suit. Thus, the plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein and the defendants are the respondents herein.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to this second appeal may be stated briefly as follows: the four plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of the title and recovery of possession of suit schedule property, namely, six acres of land in survey No. 69 of kondapur village. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants filed the appeal in a. S. No. 20 of 1991 before the District Judge, ranga Reddy. When the appeal came up for hearing before the District Judge on 26-8-1991, a memo was filed by the learned counsel for the respondents (plaintiffs) that the first respondent (first plaintiff) died on 29-7-1991. However, the appellants (defendants) filed a memo stating that the first respondent in fact died on 2-10-1985 at the Government Hospital, Anantapur.

( 4 ) ON this basis, it was argued before the first appellate Court that inasmuch as the first respondent (plaintiff No. 1) died on 2-10-1985 when the suit was pending in the trial Court and inasmuch as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff no. 1 were not brought on record, the decree under appeal is a nullity. This contention was countered firstly by stating that there was no material to show that the plaintiff No. 1 died on 2-10-1985 during the pendency of the suit.

( 5 ) THE alternative contention was that even assuming that the first plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, since the other respondents plaintiffs being co-owners could continue the suit in their own names.

( 6 ) THE first appellate Court examined the question as to the date of death of the first plaintiff and on the basis of material available on record held that the first plaintiff died in fact on 2-10-1985 i. e. , during the pendency of the suit itself and on this basis relying on various authorities cited before him, the learned District Judge held that the decree under appeal before him was a nullity. It may be mentioned that in this appeal, the appellants proceed on the basis that plaintiff No. 1 died on 2-10-1985.

( 7 ) THE learned District Judge also held that there was no question of permitting the plaintiffs to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff on record in the appeal as the appeal itself was incompetent having been filed against a decree which was nullity and accordingly allowed the appeal dismissing the suit as having abated. It is this judgment, which is now challenged in this appeal.

( 8 ) THE question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether inasmuch as the plaintiffs are the co-owners of the suit property, whether failure to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No. 1 who died during the pendency of the suit would have the effect of abating entire suit as against the surviving plaintiffs also.

( 9 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that inasmuch as the plaintiffs are the joint owners of the property having purchased the same jointly from defendant No. 1 under a registered sale deed, one co-owner represents all the co-owners in relation to the property. The contention is that inasmuch as all the co-owners have joined in the suit as plaintiffs, death of one of the co-owners does not abate the suit as a whole and that the right to sue survives solely in favour of the surviving co-owners.

( 10 ) THE learned senior Counsel sri J. V. Suryanarayana advanced very extensive and elaborate arguments as to the nature of the rights involved in the joint tenancy and tenancy