I. N. MODI, J.

( 1 ) IN this plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for possession, the only question for determination before me at this stage is whether the plaintiffs appeal in the court below abated entirely and not merely in part, that is against one of the defendant respondents Bherunlal as held by the lower appellate court.

( 2 ) IT is necessary to set out a few facts to appreciate the point in controversy. The plaintiff as sub-mortgagee brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, against two persons, namely, Bherunlal and his son Mithalal for recovery of possession of certain immovable property on the allegation that they had taken unlawful possession thereof and had refused to return it when demanded. The plaintiff also impleaded the original mortgagees as defendants in this suit and these persons admitted the plaintiffs claim though their names were subsequently ordered to be removed from the array of parties for reasons into which it is not necessary to enter. The other defendants, namely, Bherunlal and Mithalal contested the suit. Their case was that they were rightful owners in possession of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaint