JUDGMENT W. Broome, J. - This substitution application which has been made in First Appeal No. 149 of 1947 has been referred to us by our brother Katju, J. 2. In that First Appeal respondent No. 18 was Mahraj Prasad. He died on 3-10-1963. On 1.1.1964 Smt. Chandra Siri the appellant made an application under Order 22, Rule 4 for impleading Mrs. Mahraj Prasad the widow and Rajeshwari Prasad, Arun Kumar, Pravin Kumar and Kukkoo, the sons of Mahraj Prasad deceased, in the array of the respondents in the place of Mahraj Prasad deceased. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of some of the respondents in which it was alleged that Umashashi Jain, Mukta Jain and Mamta Jain daughters of Mahraj Prasad, the deceased respondent, were also his legal heirs and the substitution application made by Smt. Chandra Siri was defective in so far as there was no prayer that the three daughters aforesaid be also impleaded as respondents in place of Mahraj Prasad deceased. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of Smt. Chandra Siri it was stated that:- "As the respondent says that Shri Mahraj also left the daughters, they may also be impleaded as heirs of (the names being given in para. 3 of the affidavit) along with the heirs given in the substitution application." 3. When the substitution application was listed before Katju, J. an objection was taken that the same could not be allowed, being defective, inasmuch as there was no prayer for impleading all the heirs but only the widow and the sons. Reliance was placed on Ghamandi Lal v. Amir Begam, ILR 16 Alld. 211, and Hadur Husain v. Abdul Ahad, ILR 30 Alld. 117. On behalf of the appellant Smt. Chandra Siri reliance was placed upon Lala Radha Raman v. Anant Singh, A.I.R. 1945 Avadh 196. Ali Nabi v. Habib-un-nissa, A.I.R. 1927 Avadh 170 and M.Zafaryab Khan v. Abdul Razzaq Khan, ILR 50 All. 857. Taking the view that there was a conflict of judicial opinion on this question, Katju, J. referred the substitution application for disposal to a larger Bench and this is how the matter has come before us. 4. In our judgment the matter now stands concluded by Daya Ram v. Shyam Sundari, A.I.R. 1965 SC 1049. 857. Taking the view that there was a conflict of judicial opinion on this question, Katju, J. referred the substitution application for disposal to a larger Bench and this is how the matter has come before us. 4. In our judgment the matter now stands concluded by Daya Ram v. Shyam Sundari, A.I.R. 1965 SC 1049. Their Lordships observed as follows in that case:- "The almost universal consensus of opinion of all the High Courts is that where a plaintiff or an appellant after diligent and bona fide enquiry ascertains who the legal representatives of a deceased defendant or respondent are and brings them on record within the time limited by law, there is no abatement of the suit or appeal, that the impleaded legal representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased and that a decision obtained with them on record will bind not merely those impleaded but the entire estate including those not brought on record. The principle of this rule of law was thus explained in an early decision of the Madras High Court in Kadir Mohideen v. Muthukrishna Ayyar, ILR 26 Mad. 230. The facts of that case were that when the defendant died the first defendant before the Court was impleaded as his legal representative. The impleaded person raised no objection that he was not the sole legal representative of the deceased defendant and that there were others who had also to be joined. In these circumstances, the Court observed: "In our opinion a person whom the plaintiff alleges to be the legal representative of the deceased defendant and whose name the Court enters on the record in the place of such defendant sufficiently represents the estate of the deceased for the purposes of the suit and in the absence of any fraud or collusion the decree passed in such suit will bind such estate .... If this were not the law, it would, in no few cases be practically impossible to secure a complete representation of a party dying pending a suit and it would be specially so in the case of a Moham madan party and there can be no hardship in a provision of law by which a party dying during the pendency of a suit, is fully represented for the purpose of the suit, but only for that purpose, by a person whose name is entered on the record in place of the deceased party under Secs. 365, 367 and 368 of the Civil Procedure Code, though such person may be only one of the several legal representatives or may not be the true legal representative." This in our opinion, correctly represents the law. 5. Their Lordships also approved of Zafaryab Khan v. Abdul Razzaq Khan, ILR 50 All. 857. In fact their Lordships have noticed some judgments from other Courts also where a similar view was taken and approved them. 6. In the present case, we are satisfied, after reading the affidavits filed in the case that Smt. Chandra Siri the appellant, had no knowledge of the existence of the daughters of Maharaj Prasad deceased respondent and it appears that she came to know of their existence only after the counter affidavit had been filed in the case. We are quite satisfied that the application dated 1-1-1964 for substitution of the heirs of Mahraj Prasad deceased was a bona fide application and there was no mala fides on her part in not mentioning the names of Umashashi Jain, Mukta Jain, and Mamta Jain for being impleaded as heirs of Maharaj Prasad deceased. The application for substitution of the names of Mrs. Mahraj Prasad, Rajeshwar Prasad, Arun Kumar, Pravin Kumar, and Kukkoo was made within time. No reason lias been suggested to us and we have seen none ourselves for the conclusion that in the application dated 1-1-1964 the names of Umashashi Jain, Mukta Jain, and Mamta Jain were deliberately omitted or there was any mala fides in doing so. That being the position, in our judgment, the present case is fully governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Daya Ram v. Shyam Sundari, A.I.R. 1965 SC 1049. 7. That being the position, in our judgment, the present case is fully governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Daya Ram v. Shyam Sundari, A.I.R. 1965 SC 1049. 7. We, therefore, allow the substitution application and direct that the name of Mahraj Prasad deceased respondent No. 18 be expunged from the array of the respondents and in his place the names of Mrs. Maharaj Prasad widow. Rajeshwar Prasad. Arun Kumar, Pravin Kumar and Kakkoo sons and Uma Shashi Jain, Mukta Jain and Mamta Jain daughters of Maharaj Prasad deceased be substituted. There is no order to costs.