S.K.Jha, J.

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the plaintiffs. The Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the lower appellate court dismissing the plaintiffs (who were also appellants in the lower appellate court) application for setting aside abatement and substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of one Satahu Mahto, who was minor respondent No. 5 before that court. The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree holding, in pursuance of the above mentioned order of rejection of the application for setting aside abatement, that the entire appeal before the lower appellate court had become incompetent and, accordingly, the plaintiffs appeal before that court was dismissed.

2. Shortly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are these. The appellants had instituted Title Suit No. 92 of 1953 for a declaration of title and recovery of possession against a number of defendants including the aforesaid Satahu Mahto, who was the minor defendant No. 5 in the suit, his father, Sonelal Mahto having been impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit. The suit was based on allegation, inter alia, that the plaintiffs-appellants were the r