JUDGMENT 1. This rule comes on for hearing with Appeal No. 15 of 1904, which is brought by the Defendant No. 2 from the judgment of the first Subordinate Judge of Chapra, setting aside the sale held for arrears of revenue of the joint estate mehal Chainpur, Mobarakpur. The Plaintiffs were 14 in number and they together with the Defendant No. 2, the present Appellant, and the pro forma Defendants, constituted the joint owners of the estate. 2. During the pendency of the appeal two of the Respondents in the appeal, v. Plaintiffs Nos. 5 and 10, died and their representatives have not been placed upon the record. 3. Under these circumstances a rule was granted calling upon the Appellants to show cause why the appeal should not abate. The Respondents support the rule and contend that under the provisions of sec. 582 and sec. 368, C. P. C., the appeal must abate and the Court, therefore, must dismiss it. 4. By sec. 368 of the Civil Procedure Code, if any Defendant dies before decree and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving Defendant or Defendants alone, the Plaintiff may apply to have a specified person whom he alleges to be the legal representative of the deceased substituted for him, and the Court is thereupon to enter the name of such person on the record; but it is provided that when the Plaintiff fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the suit shall abate, unless he satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. 5. By sec. 582 the words "Plaintiff," "Defendant," and "suit" include an Appellant, Respondent, and an appeal respectively. 6. By sec. 66 of the CPC Amendment Act (Act VII of 1888) the period of six months from the date of the death of the deceased Defendant is the period prescribed for making an application under sec. 368 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. In the present case the application was not made within time and the Appellant did not show sufficient cause for his failure to make it within time. The only question is, does the right of appeal survive against the surviving Respondents alone. 368 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. In the present case the application was not made within time and the Appellant did not show sufficient cause for his failure to make it within time. The only question is, does the right of appeal survive against the surviving Respondents alone. If it does so survive, the appeal can proceed against those surviving Respondents alone, if it does not -or, in other words, if the representatives of the deceased Respondents are necessary parties to the appeal-then the appeal cannot proceed without them, and must abate, the Appellant having failed to make an application under sec. 368 within the prescribed period. 8. A large number of cases were cited which really, in our opinion, do not affect the case, the words of the section being perfectly plain. The Appellants relied on Joy Gobind Laha v. Monmotha Nath Banerji I. L. R. 33 Cal. 582 (1906) but that case was decided on the ground that there the liability of the Defendant-Respondents was joint and several and that the Appellants' right did survive against the surviving Respondents alone., 9. In the present case the suit was for the setting aside the sale of property of which the deceased persons were, jointly with others, the proprietors. In our opinion the suit would have been bad had it been brought in the absence of the deceased persons. They were bound to come in as Plaintiffs if they desired to have the sale set aside: if they had been unwilling to join as Plaintiffs, those proprietors who desired to set the sale aside would have been obliged to make them Defendants, because they were endeavoring to affect the property of which the deceased were proprietors. Then in this case the deceased proprietors did join with the others in the proceeding to have the sale set aside, and a decree has been passed in their favour. 10. We fail to see how this decree could be reversed in appeal without the representatives of the deceased proprietors being placed on the record. The sale of the deceased proprietor's estate has been set aside, and they have been replaced in the position in which they were before the sale was, and their estate has been restored to them. 10. We fail to see how this decree could be reversed in appeal without the representatives of the deceased proprietors being placed on the record. The sale of the deceased proprietor's estate has been set aside, and they have been replaced in the position in which they were before the sale was, and their estate has been restored to them. Now that they are dead, can that decree be reversed and their estate taken away from their representatives without their being made parties to the appeal ? 11. The learned Counsel for the Appellant says that the decree can be reversed, because the Court of Appeal, if it reversed the decree of the lower Court, could order that the reversal should not affect the decree of the lower Court in so far as that decree dealt with the shares of the deceased Respondents. 12. We do not agree that any such order could be made. The decree sets aside the sale of the entire joint estate. Under no circumstances could that decree be affirmed as to the unascertained shares of some joint-shareholders, and reversed as to the unascertained shares of other joint-shareholders. 13. In my opinion the rule must be made absolute, directing that the appeal do abate. Appeal No. 15 of 1904 having abated is dismissed with costs.