JUDGMENT

1. This is a second civil appeal by the defendants in a suit for a declaration which was dismissed by the trial Court but which has been decreed by the lower appellate Court. Jumman Kabaria instituted a suit for a declaration that a certain panchayatnama executed by the defendants declaring that the plaintiff had been excommunicated by a meeting of the biradari held on 19th September 1935, was not a genuine panchayatnama, and that the proceedings taken by the panchas were improper and did not affect the plaintiff's status as a member of the biradari. He also claimed Rs. 100 as damages. It may be mentioned that there was some dispute between Jumman and one Maula Bakhsh concerning some property which had been left by Kallu deceased. Maula Bakhsh referred the matter to pahchas. Notice was issued to Jumman to attend the panchayat on 19th September 1933, for the settlement of the dispute but he did not enter appearance. The panchayat instead of deciding the dispute against him excommunicated him from the biradari. Jumman filed a complaint in the Magistrate's Court under Section 500/504, Penal Code, where the defendants were asked what they had seen at the panchayat held on 19th September 1933. The panchas wrote in a document dated 18th September 1935 (Ex. 1) that Jumman had been excommunicated for certain irregularities of conduct at a meeting of the biradari.

2. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that although the plaintiff had been excommunicated from the biradari on 19th September 1933, Section 9, Civil P.C. was a bar to the suit. Jumman appealed and the learned civil Judge of Mohanlalgunj held that there had been no valid excommunication of Jumman from the biradari. He also held that the proceedings of the panches excommunicating Jumman were wholly against natural justice and illegal. The learned civil Judge, however, did not grant any decree for damages. The only decree that he granted was a declaration that the excommunication of Jumman by the panchayat held on 19th September 1933, was against natural justice and illegal and accordingly Jumman still retained his status as a member of the biradari of Kabarias. Aggrieved by that decision the defendants have preferred this second appeal. The appeal was filed on 30th April 1938. Jumman, however, died on 2nd November 1940, and an application was made by appellants to have his four sons, Ramzan, Latif, Abbu and Abdul Ghani, brought on the record as his heirs and legal representatives. Abdul Ghani was already on the record as appellant i. It was ordered that the names of Ramzan, Latif and Abbu be substituted in place of Jumman and that a note be made against the name of Abdul Ghani that he is one of the representatives of the deceased Jumman.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that the appeal has abated on the ground that the cause of action being personal to Jumman, no right to sue survives in favour of the respondents upon his death. Having heard the parties, we are of opinion that this objection must be upheld. It may be mentioned that Jumman did not file any appeal against the dismissal of his claim for damages, nor has any such appeal been filed by the respondents. The question whether the right to sue survives to the respondents depends upon whether the action brought by Jumman was or was not a personal action which terminated on his death; in other words, whether the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona applied to the circumstances of the present case. It appears to us that the cause of action which was the basis of Jumman's suit related to the personal injury caused to his reputation by reason of the decision of the panchayat which excommunicated him. This cause of action cannot be held to survive to his heirs and legal representatives. It may be that his heirs and legal representatives on proof of certain facts may be able to sustain a suit in their own independent right and upon an independent cause of action that