JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge, Kanpur under Order XXII, Rule 10, C. P. C. rejecting the appellant's application for substitution as a trustee in place of a deceased trustee and appointing the five respondents Satya Narain, Raj Kumar, Ram Sewak, Om Prakash and Munsa Ram as trustees in place of the deceased trustee for the purpose of continuing an appeal filed by the trust. Two persons, Chhedi Lal and his son Jwala Prasad, created a trust for the establishment of two idols. One Munna Lal was appointed the trustee under the trust deed. The trust filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of money from certain persons. During the pendency of the suit one of the makers of the trust, Chhedi Lal died leaving Jwala Prasad as the sole maker of the trust. Subsequently the trustee Munnu Lal also died and appointment of a new trustee became necessary for carrying out the purposes of the trust, including the prosecution of the suit mentioned above. Jwala Prasad the surviving maker of the trust appointed the aforesaid five respondents as trustees in the place of Munnu Lal. It appears that the members of the biradari appointed the appellant Pannalal as the trustee. Two applications were made before the District Judge, one by Panna Lal and the other by the aforesaid five respondents. The appellant Pannalal's application was dismissed in default as he did not appear. The application for the five respondents was allowed, and Panna Lal has come here in appeal. 2. Mr. S.N. Verma argued that the learned District Judge instead of applying his mind to the question whether the five respondents were fit and proper persons to be substituted in the place of the deceased trustee, appointed them because he considered himself bound by the decision of the surviving maker of the trust to nominate them as trustees. But this argument has no substance in view of Sec. 73 of the Trusts Act which provides for the appointment of a new trustee in case of death. But this argument has no substance in view of Sec. 73 of the Trusts Act which provides for the appointment of a new trustee in case of death. It says in effect that whenever any person appointed a trustee dies (I have omitted the part of the section which is not relevant to the present controversy), a new trustee may be appointed in his place by (a) a person nominated for that purpose by the instrument of trust (if any) or (b) if there be no such person, or no such person able and willing to act, the author of the trust if he be alive and competent to contract, or the surviving or continuing trustees or trustee for the time being .... (It is not necessary to quote the remaining part of the section). 3. It is conceded that in this case the trust deed did not provide for the appointment of a new trustee in case of death. Therefore, a new trustee could be appointed by the author of the trust. Mr. Verma contended that in this case there were two co-authors and on the death of one, the surviving author could not exercise this power of appointment. I cannot agree. If a trust is created by a father and his son jointly, and the father dies, his rights will devolve on the son. Moreover, in such a case, the surviving author for the trust will be competent to exercise the power of appointment under Sec. 73. The words "the author of the trust" must be interpreted to mean a surviving author in case the other author dies. 4. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.