1. The defendants are appellants before this Court against the judgement of affirmance passed in a suit for specific performance of contract.

2. The plaintiffs case in short, is that one Umrao Mahto died in jointness leaving behind two sons Tosila Mistry and Khush Lal Mistri. Khush Lal died leaving behind three sons, Karu, Ugrasen and Sukh Lal. Karus son is Siri who had two sons and they are plaintiffs. Sukh Lal died leaving behind his widow (defendant No. 1) and three daughters (defendants 2, 3 and 4). The interest of Sukh Lal in the suit property was admittedly 1/6th. It is said that on 21-4-1969 defendant No. 1 who is widow of Sukh Lal executed a Mahadanama in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing therein to transfer 1/6th share in the suit property in their favour for Rs. 5000.00 out of which Rs. 4000.00 was paid. Defendants 1 to 4 who are widow and daughters of Sukh Lal sold their 1/6th share in the suit property to defendants 5 and 6 under registered sale deed after execution of the Mahadanama in favour of the plaintiffs by defendant No. 1. Defendants 5 and 6 sold the property purchased by them as stated above to defendants 7 to 13 under a registered sale deed. So far as defendant No. 7 is concerned, he purchased the suit property in the name of his father who is none else than defendant No. 14 and defendant No. 14, as a matter of fact, is Karmu Mahto though by mistake he has been shown in the grounds of appeal as well as in the decree under appeal and the plaint as Karu Mahto. Since defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the same necessitated filing of the present suit in question.

3. Only the purchasers, namely, defendants 7 to 13 appeared and contested the suit and their case, inter alia, was that the Mahadanama was not genuine; they were purchasers for value without notice and, therefore, the suit was fit to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court after considering the evidence decreed the suit for specific performance of the contract after recording a finding that the Mahadanama was genuine, the contesting defendants were not bona fide purchasers for value and they had notice of the Mahadanama.

4. On appeal being taken, the lower appellate court has dismissed the same and affirmed all the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, this appeal.

5. Sri Rajendra Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents raised a preliminary objection that the whole appeal has become incompetent in view of the fact that respondent No. 7, who was defendant No. 14, died during the pendency of the appeal and by order No. 10, dt. 20-12-1983 time was granted to the appellants either to file a petition for substitution or to file an affidavit to the effect. that respondent No. 7 is still alive as it was contended on behalf of the appellants that respondent No. 7 was alive. While granting time in the aforesaid order this Court was pleased to observe that in case no steps are taken within the time granted, in that event the appeal would be held to have abated against the heirs of respondent No. 7 without further reference to a Bench. Since neither any affidavit nor any petition was filed on behalf of the appellants, this appeal stood abated against the heirs of respondent No. 7. Therefore, this matter was placed before the Bench again on 11-4-1984 with an office note as to whether the whole appeal has become incompetent or not and this Court directed that this matter should be considered at the time of hearing of the main appeal and in this way this question has been raised before me as a preliminary objection when this appeal was taken up for hearing.

6. Sri R.K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants first contended that respondent No. 7 who was defendant No. 14 neither appeared in the suit nor filed written statement, nor contested the same. Therefore, under O.22, R.4(4) of the Civil P.C. the appellants were exempted from substituting