This revision petition by Jaitdan defendant petitioner is directed against the order passed in appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 17.6.65. The facts are that one Chainsingh plaintiff filed a suit for demolition of a dhora constructed by Jaitdan petitioner across his field to prevent the rain-water running to the plaintiffs field. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The plaintiff Chainsingh sought to execute his decree and while the decree was being executed, the defendant petitioner filed an appeal before the revenue appellate authority against plaintiff Chainsingh. During the pendency of the appeal Chain Singh died and was survived by his 5 sons and one widow. Only two of his sons Purabdan and Bhurdan were impleaded as legal representative and the other 3 daughters and widow were not brought on record. The Revenue Appellate Authority after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the entire appeal abated for failure to implead other legal representatives of the deceased respondent, Under O. 22, r. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is against this order that the first appeal was preferred and that subsequently converted into revision. The counsel for the petitioners only contention was that it was not necessary to implead all the legal representatives of deceased Chainsingh and the two eldest sons of the deceased who were members of the deceased family sufficiently represented the estate of the deceased. In support he cited A.I.R. 1926 M.P. p. 79 as well as A.I R. 1965 S.C. p. 1049. The counsel for the respondents at first attempted to counter this revision application on the ground that in passing the impugned order the appellate Court exercised the jurisdiction in a proper manner. The appellate Court was vested with the jurisdiction which though he exercised in a improper manner was no ground for interfering in the present revision proceedings. He cited A.I.R. 1916 S.C. p. 1336. He also replied by saying on the authority of 1962 S.G. p. 89 that out of the two co-owners in whose favour award of compensation in the land acquisition proceedings were passed and if only the legal representative of the deceased co-owner were not brought on record the entire appeal abated. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. The first question for determination before me is whether this revision petition is maintainable or not. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record. The first question for determination before me is whether this revision petition is maintainable or not. In this case the first appellate Court has decided a question of law and not of fact in holding that the appeal abated because the entire set of the legal representatives of the deceased Chainsingh were not brought on record. He rebutted the doctrine of sufficient representation of a joint Hindu family. Therefore, the reply given by the counsel for the respondent in invoking the authority of A, I. R. 1964 S. C. 1336 is of no avail. In that case the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court where it wrongfully interfered with the order of the subordinate Court on a question of fact whether there was sufficiency of cause or not for setting aside the abatement order. Thus this ruling does not apply to the present case. In that case the question of fact of the sufficiency of cause was sought to be interfered with by the High Court, while in the present case the subordinate Court has decided, by holding that out of the 6 legal representatives of the deceased, in bringing only the two legal representatives on record was not sufficient to maintain the appeal. The ruling of the Supreme Court in A I.R. 1965 p. 1049 cited by the counsel for the petitioner is sufficient answer to the present case. It clearly lays down that some legal representatives of the deceased if brought on record sufficiently represented the estate of the deceased and it is not necessary to bring all the legal representatives of the deceased on record. Thus the doctrine of sufficient representation of a Hindu family of the deceased for purposes of maintaining an appeal stands fully supported by this decision of the Supreme Court which has been followed on numerous occasions and accepted by the various High Courts of this country. A.I.R. 1966 M. P. p. 79 is one of these ruling which follows the Supreme Court on this important question of law. Thus there could be no abatement if out of so many members of the joint Hindu family of the deceased, if only few are brought on record, who are capable of representing the estate of the deceased in a sufficient manner. Thus there could be no abatement if out of so many members of the joint Hindu family of the deceased, if only few are brought on record, who are capable of representing the estate of the deceased in a sufficient manner. The Revenue Appellate Authority took an erroneous view of the ruling of the Rajasthan High Court reported in A.I.R. 1959. This ruling only lays down that it is necessary to bring every trespasser on record, otherwise failure to bring some will result into passing of inconsistent decrees and this situation has to be avoided at all times. Thus the subordinate Court clearly ran into a manifest error of law in holding that the entire appeal abated for failure to bring all the legal representatives of the deceased Chainsingh on record. The counsel for the respondent then tried that the decree obtained between plaintiff respondent stood executed and no useful purpose would he served in sending this case back to the first appellate Court for a decision of this point of law. At this stage I would not like to make any observation on this point whether any purpose would be served or not in sending this case back to the subordinate Court. I would leave this matter to be decided by the first appellate Court when the case back. goes back. The revision petition of the petitioner on the reasons stated above is hereby accepted and the order of toe Revenue Appellate Authority is set aside. The appeal is hereby held to be maintainable and not abated and he will now hear the parties on remand and dispose of the case on merits.