Narayan, J.

1. A question as to the competency of this appeal has arisen on account of the rejection of the petition for substitution in place of the deceased appellant No. 39, Ramanugrah Singh. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that as the heirs of the said Ramanugrah Singh have not been brought on the record, the entire appeal has abated. Besides a son who has been a party to this litigation from the very beginning and who is appellant no. 41 in this appeal, the said Ramanugrah has left a widow who had not been made a party and who has not been substituted in his place after his death. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that the entire appeal has not abated on account of the failure of the appellants to bring on the record the widow of Ramanugrah.

2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to state a few facts. The dispute giving rise to this litigation is a dispute relating to irrigation, and the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were entitled to have an unobstructed flow of water to Ahar no. 800 from certain Karhas and from there through certain plots and through certain cuts and Sotas for irrigation of their