1. In this second appeal by the defendants, the only relevant question that arises for consideration is as to whether their appeal in the lower appellate court had abated entirely or if at all, in part. The court of appeal below has held that the whole appeal abated on account of the death of one of the respondents.

2. The precise facts to appreciate the question arising for determination are that a suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff-respondents claiming 1/3rd share in the suit properties. One Ram Dular Singh was defendant No. 2 and his son Sukram Singh, defendant No. 3, Ram Dular Singh did not file any , written statement. But the pleas of some of the contesting defendants including the appellants was that there had already been a previous partition. The trial court decreed the suit and therefore, the appellants filed a title appeal in the court of the District Judge, Muzaffiarpur. In that appeal, Ram Dular Singh was respondent No. 3 and his son Sukhram Singh was respondent No. 4. Unfortunately, for the appellants, this Ram Dular Singh died on the 12.03.1968 during the pendency of the appeal in that court and the appellants did not take any step for substitute t