Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. Kishun Tatwa, respondent No. 6, died during the pendency of this appeal, and his heirs and legal representatives, namely, Musmmat Gungia, his widow and Banwari Tatwa and Jugeshwar Tatwa, his two sons, were substituted in his place. Since, however, the appellants failed to take steps for service of notice on the substituted heirs of the deceased respondent, by virtue of the order of this Court dated 6-9-50, this appeal abated, and was dismissed against the substituted heirs on 20-9-50 nOW the question is whether this abatement against the heirs of one of the respondents involves the abatement of the entire appeal. Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha appearing for the respondents contended that the entire appeal had abated, while Mr. A.K. Sinha representing the appellants contended that the appeal did not abate as a whole but only against the beirs of the deceased respondent.

2. In order to appreciate their argument it will be necessary to state a few facts. In 1934 the Darbhanga Raj, defendant third-party instituted against the plaintiff a rent suit, being Rent Suit No. 1583 of 1934, for recovery of arrears of rent for four years, from 1338 to 1341 Fasli, in respect o