D. P, Sood, J.—In this regular second appeal defendant No. 7 is the appellant. The sole substantial question of law urged before this Court is: "Whether respondents 7 to 10 (legal representatives of late Shri Lai Singh), who are not parties to the suit, had a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the District Judge?”

2. In order to appreciate the controversy in question narration of material facts is absolutely essential: "S/Shri Kuram Dutt and Sangat Ram, sons of Shri Kewal Ram, one of the mortgagees out of four brothers, namely, Kewal Ram, Tulsi Ram, Kalu and Karam Singh, purchased one-half share of the suit land with specific numbers to the extent of 9 bighas 15 biswas from one Shri Man Singh. Initially, land belonging to one Smt. Brikmu. She had gifted her entire land including the suit land vide gift deed dated 30-10-1967 in favour of said Man Singh subject to a condition that the donee (Man Singh) would continue to maintain her by paying cash amount of Rs. 35 per month. That gift was revoked by a subsequent decree passed in favour of Smt. Brikmu and against Shri Man Singh aforesaid to the extent of one-half share in the entire property earlier gifted to donee referred to above. There had been no partition in between the predecessor«in-interest of the parties. Thus, Smt. Brikmu and Shri Man Singh continued to have one-half share in the joint Khata."

3. Thereafter Man Singh aforesaid sold land to the extent of 5-6-0 bighas vide registered sale deed dated 17-11-1976 in favour of Karam Singh, defendant, now appellant before this Court. The plaintiffs, now respondents 1 and 2, namely, S/Shri Karam Dutt and Sangat Ram filed the instant suit in the court of learned Senior Sub-Judge, Kullu for declaration that second sale effected through registered sale deed dated 17-11-1976 by Shri Man Singh, now being represented through his legal representatives, being in excess to his share, is void. Defendant Karam Singh, now appellant, only contested the suit before the trial Court. The trial Court decreed the suit holding the plaintiffs to be the owners of the land measuring 9-15-0 bighas contained in specific khasra numbers detailed in the head note of the plaint, out of one-half share of late Shri Man Singh. It further held that the plaintiffs having no right, title and interest in the other one-half share earlier owned by Smt. Brikmu, had no locus standi to file the suit and Bis suit for declaration without possession on this part of the suit land was held not maintainable. Hence, to this extent the suit was dismissed.

4. Respondents 7 to 10 (Legal representatives of late Shri Lai Singh), who were not parties to the main suit in the trial Court, feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree" of the trial Court filed the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who vide his order dated 5th August, 1985 held that said respondents (appellants before the first appellate court) had locus standi to institute the appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It further held that defendant No. 5, Karam Singh (now appellant), could acquire the ownership and possessory rights of Shri Man Singh to the remaining land measuring 0-8-0 bighas and not to the land measuring 5-6-0 bighas as shown in the second sale deed dated 17th November, 1976. On account of the outcome of this appeal, defendant Karam Singh had filed the instant appeal.

5. At the very outset, it may be noted that the respondents (now - appellants) had admitted before the first appellate court that there was no partition effected between late Smt. Brikmu and Shri Man Singh (since deceased) and both remained in joint khata. Consequent thereto, they obtained a consent decree by way of modification of the decree passed by the trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree.

6. As regards the locus standi of respondents 7 to 10 to file the first appeal, suffice it to state that an appeal being a continuation of the sui