Sreeniwas Harish Kumar, J.

In the second appeal by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 230/1994 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Nippani, the substantial questions of law raised at the time of admission are as follows:-

1. Whether the judgment passed in R.A.77/1998 after the death of the appellant therein and the absence of the application for bringing the LRs. on record is sustainable in law?

2. Whether the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to preemption right under section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act?

2. In the first substantial question of law, it appears that wrongly it is mentioned that appellant before the court below died. But the party who died was respondent No. 3, Krishnabai and therefore, the said question needs to be suitably modified. Hence, the question is :-

"Whether the judgment passed in R.A.77/1998 after the death of 3rd respondent, Krishnabai, is sustainable in law when her legal representatives were not brought on record during the pendency of the appeal?"

3. Given a brief account of the pleadings, the plaintiff instituted the suit for the reliefs of declaration that he had got pre-emptory right to purch