JUDGMENT Sadasava Aiyar, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order of Ayling, J., dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 877 of 1916 filed by the next reversioner (or one of the next set of reversioners) who was entitled to continue a suit (Original Suit No. 27 of 1914, Temporary Sub-Court, Tanjore) brought by a person who was then the nearest reversioner for setting aside certain alienations effected by the 1st defendant (a Hindu widow). The original plaintiff died in April 1914 and on the 17th July 1914 (before the six months expired) the Subordinate Judge, without hearing the petitioner-appellant or any other among the surviving body of reversioners, passed an order declaring that the suit had abated. The petitioner was no doubt present in Court, intending at first to present an application when the order was passed but he thought it was useless to make such an application. The Sub-ordinate Judge did not treat him as a person who was entitled to be heard on the question whether the suit had abated, and his name did not appear on the record of the suit or in any proceedings connected. with the suit, prior in date to the order of abatement. The Subordinate Judges order was justified by the then current decisions of this Court, but in the beginning of 1915 the Privy Council decided the case reported as Venkatanarayana Pillay v. Subbammal 29 Ind. Cas. 298 : 38 M. 403 : 28 M.L.J. 535 : 17 M.L.T. 435 : 21 C.L.J. 515 : 17 Bom.L.R. 468 : 19 C.W.N. 611 : 2 L.W. 596 : (1915) M.W.N. 655 : 42 I.A. 125 (P.C.), in which their Lordships held that a suit brought by the next reversioner is a suit really brought on behalf of the entire body of the reversioners and that if the reversioner who was conducting the suit dies, the next man is entitled to come in for the purpose of continuing the conduct of the suit. Their Lordships express a doubt on the question whether the next reversioner, who has the right to continue the suit, comes within the definition of a "legal representative" in Section 2, sub Section II, Civil Procedure Code. Their Lordships express a doubt on the question whether the next reversioner, who has the right to continue the suit, comes within the definition of a "legal representative" in Section 2, sub Section II, Civil Procedure Code. But they base their decision on a broader ground, namely, that he was already a party to the suit though the conduct of it was in the hands of the 1st reversioner and that therefore he was entitled to continue the suit after the plaintiffs death. Abdur Rahim, J., held in a case reported as Sivagurunatha Chettiar v. Ramaswami Iyengar 15 Ind. Cas. 399 : 11 M.L.T. 257 : (1912) M.W.N. 105 : 25 M.L.J. 630 that a person who brings a suit on behalf of himself and others having the same interest (after having got permission under Order I, Rule 8) brings what is known as a representative suit, (which, I think, must be distinguished from a suit brought by a plaintiff in a representative capacity, i, e., as executor, administrators guardian or trustee for some other person having the beneficial or legal interest) and the learned Judge seems to think that when such a plaintiff dies, any person who has the same interest and on whose behalf also the suit was brought, when he applies for liberty to continue the suit, does not fall within the definition of legal representative, though he has got a right, as a person on whose behalf also the suit was originally brought, to continue the suit on the death of the plaintiff who had till then the conduct of the suit. The learned Judge also holds that there is no limitation at all for an application by such a, person to continue the suit. I am, however,