1. This is a suit by the widow (the mother of the last male owner) for a declaration that an adoption by her sons widow is invalid. The plaintiff died before the suit came on for hearing in the court of first instance. Reversioners of the last male owner were made parties as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The only question argued on the hearing of the appeal was can they continue the suit? The courts below were of opinion that they could. We are unable to take this view.

2. The first question for consideration is does the deceased plaintiffs right to sue survive (Order XXII Rule 3)? If it does not, no question as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff arises.

3. It appears to be well settled that a suit by a reversioner who sues on his own behalf to set aside an alienation by a widow abates on the death of plaintiff and that the right to sue does not survive to the next reversioners (see Sakyahani high Rao Baheb v. Bhavani Bozi Sacheb (1904) I.L.R. 27. M. 588, Chinnct Veerayya v. Laleshnti Narasamma (1912) I.L.R. 22 M.L.J. 375). In Muthusawmy Mudaliar v. Masilamani (1909) I.L.R. 33 M. 342, where the suit was held not to abate the