dismissed. But he was given a decree for refund of the advance amount with interest. First defendant is the owner of the property, who entered into the agreement with the appellant not only to sell his right, but the life interest of his mother, the second defendant, also. First defendant died after decree and appeal. Respondents 3 to 6 are his legal representatives. Among them, third respondent is the widow and others the children. Fourth respondent, after he attained majority, filed a memorandum of cross objection challenging the decree for refund of the advance amount and contending that the agreement itself is not valid as the first defendant had no alienable right since it is a joint family property.

2. Fourth respondent was impleaded in the appeal after the death of the first respondent only as his legal representative. Under Order XXII Rule 4(2), he can make his defence only appropriate to his character as legal representative of the first respondent He cannot set up new or individual rights not set up by or not available to the first respondent or in consistent with the defence taken up by the first respondent. It is open to the court to allow a legal representat