ORDER : This is plaintiff's revision. Plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of mortgage money against Ganpatrao defendant. Ganpatrao filed written statement on 28-10-1950, wherein he admitted the claim except for compound interest and costs. During the pendency of the suit Ganpatrao died. His legal representatives Bhalchandrarao, Madhavrao and Sadashivrao were brought on the record. They filed written statements on 10-5-1951 and took several pleas. Plaintiff filed an application dated 24-5-51 and objected to some of the pleas taken by the legal representatives. This objection was overruled by the trial court. Hence the plaintiff has filed this revision. 2. The trial court in dismissing the application of the plaintiff has made the following observations : "Vakil vadine - AIR 1924 Mad 245; - AIR 1921 Cal 343 ityadi ka hawala deeya hai, jinme karar deeya hai ki: 'Legal representatives cannot plead contrary to what deceased has pleaded'. Kayam mukaman is mamle me koi bat 'contrary plead' nahi keeya hai balki sabika jabab dave ke alawa jaweed majeed ujarat kiye hai jo sabika daweke 'contrary' nahi hai. Pus najayaj gair mutaalik hai, aur darkhwast na manjoor kee jati hai." Application of the plaintiff dated 24-5-51 states as follows : "Kanoon kayam mukaman pratiwadi aisi koi jabab dehi nahi kar sakte hai ki jo mutwafi pratiwadi ne na kee ho. Pus aise kul jadeed ujrat kayam mukaman namanjoor kiye jawe, wa prakaran ko wajaye tankeehat waramdagi ke karwai us stage se chalu kee jawe kee gis stage par mutwafi pratiwadi ke intakal ke wakta thi." Before proceeding to determine what pleas can be taken by the legal representatives of the deceased in this case, it is necessary to review the position of law on the subject. Order 22 Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code runs as follows : "(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to this character as legal representative of the deceased defendant............" It is clear from sub-r. 2 of R. 4, that a legal representative can make only such defence as is appropriate to his character as legal representative. A legal representative must continue the litigation on the cause of action sued upon and cannot set up a new and individual right. He can take up any plea which may be appropriate to his character as legal representative. But he cannot take up a new and inconsistent plea or a plea contrary to the one taken by the deceased. In - 'Ghulli v. Sawan', AIR 1924 Lah 45, their Lordships of the Lahore High Court observed as follows : "When a party to a suit dies, a legal representative is appointed, merely in order that, the suit might proceed, and a decision be arrived at. It is the rights and disabilities that have to be considered and the mere fact that Gulli could not have brought a suit to set aside these alienations on the ground of limitation is not, in our opinion, sufficient to render the suit by Nigahia liable to dismissal." In - 'Thambatti v. Sankara Menon', AIR 1924 Mad 245 their Lordships of the Madras High Court observed as follows : "We are not able to understand how the present legal representative of the third plaintiff has any different legal character from the third plaintiff himself or any, which would enable him to abandon the third plaintiff's contentions in the present proceedings, with which alone we are concerned." In - 'Kameshwar Singh v. Rajbansi Singh', AIR 1943 Pat 433, Chatterji, J., made the following observations. "The widow has been impleaded in this appeal as the legal representative of her deceased husband, and as such she can raise only such objections as could have been taken by her husband himself." In - 'Darappa v. Mallappa', AIR 1947 Bom 307 Lokur, J., observed as follows : "As observed in - 4 Lah 72', when a party to a suit dies, his legal representatives are appointed merely in order that the suit might proceed, and a decision be arrived at. It is the rights and disabilities of the original parties that have to be considered and not those of the legal representatives themselves. It is the rights and disabilities of the original parties that have to be considered and not those of the legal representatives themselves. All that the legal representatives can, therefore, do is to take up the suit at the stage at which it was left when the original party died and to continue it. It is not open to them to assert their own individual or hostile title to the suit. It follows, therefore, that, if any defence to the suit was not open to the deceased defendant, his legal representative would not be at liberty to plead that defence. If for instance, the deceased defendant was estopped from putting forward any defence, his legal representatives, though not themselves similarly estopped, would not be at - liberty to put forward that defence. That would be allowing the legal representatives to set up or agitate a new or individual right, and it is not open to them to put forward any personal defence. As held in - 'Thavazhi Karnavan v. Sankunni', AIR 1933 Mad 52, if a legal representative wants to raise any new point which the deceased party could not have raised, he must get himself impleaded in his personal capacity, or he must challenge the decree in a separate suit. The same view was taken by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in - 'Ramugrah Ojha v. Ganesh Singh', ILR (1940) All 153 (FB)." These decisions have now crystallized the position of law on the subject. It is not open to a legal representative to set up his own individual or hostile title to the suit. Nor can he take any plea which was not open to the deceased defendant himself. 3. This being the position in law let us examine the pleas taken by the legal representative in this case. Ganpatrao deceased admitted the fact of mortgage. He only contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to charge compound interest, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs. In the written statements filed by the legal representatives, they have taken four pleas which are as follows : 1. That the mortgage house being ancestral joint family property, Ganpatrao alone had no right to mortgage it. 2. The debt was not taken for any legal necessity, nor did the legal representatives benefit by it. Consequently that debt is not binding on the mortgaged house. 3. That the mortgage house being ancestral joint family property, Ganpatrao alone had no right to mortgage it. 2. The debt was not taken for any legal necessity, nor did the legal representatives benefit by it. Consequently that debt is not binding on the mortgaged house. 3. There has been no partition between Ganpatrao and his sons. Hence Ganpatrao had no right to mortgage any particular share in the property. 4. That the rent note not being registered, the mortgaged house is not liable for the payment of the amount of that rent. It is clear that all these four pleas were not open to the deceased, in so far as he had admitted the fact of mortgage and the amount of rent due to the plaintiff. Consequently his legal representatives cannot raise these pleas which were inconsistent with the ones taken by the deceased himself. As laid down in - 'Dareppa v. Mallappa', AIR 1947 Bom 307, if the legal representatives want to raise any new point which deceased could not have raised, they must get themselves impleaded in their personal capacity or they must challenge the decree in a separate suit. The result is that this revision petition must succeed. 4. Accordingly the revision is allowed and the order of the lower court is set aside. Applicant to get his costs from the opposite parties. Revision allowed.