JUDGMENT Misra, J. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who instituted a suit for redemption of a zerpeshgi deed dated the 5th October, 1925, executed by one Sarbnarain Lall in favour of original defendant no. 1 who, it may be stated, is since dead. The amount of consideration for the deed was Rs. 500/- and the mortgaged property was 6 bighas 2 kathas 5 dhurs of lands comprised in Khata No. 100 of village Rajanpura, in the district of Saran. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that after the death of Sarbnarain Lall, the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 each separated one third share. The further case of the plaintiff was that one-third share of the mortgagor and the mortgagee merged in respect of the share of Ganesh Prasad defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 was in collusion with defendant no. 1. Accordingly, the plaintiff alone deposited Rs. 333/5/4 for two-third share. Defendant no. 1, who resisted the claim, urged that he alone inherited the entire property, and defendant no. 2 also supported him. It is not necessary to set out the other facts of the case more fully because the decision of the appeal depends upon the question of abatement. It may be stated that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in the trial court, against which he preferred Title Appeal No. 93/19 of 1962 in the court of appeal below. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant no. 1 who was respondent no. 1, died on the 12th of March, 1963. On the 31st April, 1963, a petition for substitution was duly made, impleading Motichand, son of the deceased respondent, and four grandsons of Ganesh Prasad, being the sons of a predeceased son Bachu Prasad, but Mossomat Ham Sundari Devi, widow of the predeceased son was by mistake not substituted. The court of appeal below in the circumstances took the view, without entering into the merits of the appeal, that the appeal abated as a whole, because Mossomat Ram Sundari Devi was not impleaded within the time allowed by law. The court of appeal below in the circumstances took the view, without entering into the merits of the appeal, that the appeal abated as a whole, because Mossomat Ram Sundari Devi was not impleaded within the time allowed by law. The judgment of the court of appeal below rested upon a decision of this Court in Gauri Shanker Singh and another V. Smt. Jwalamukhi Devi and others (A. I. R. 1962 Patna 392), which lays down that unless all the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased defendant on respondent are brought on the record, the application filed for bringing on record the remaining heirs and legal representatives would not be sufficient compliance with the provision of Order 22, Rules 3 and 4, Code of Civil Procedure. In that view, the court of appeal held that the appeal had abated, and as such it was dismissed. This second appeal is directed against that judgment of the court of appeal below. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the judgment of the lower appellate court cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Daya Ram and others V. Shyam Sundari and others (A. I. R. 1965 Supreme Court 1049) and (2) Dolai Maliko and others V. Krishna Chandra Patnaik and others (A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 49). In the first case, it has been laid down 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, if 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. In such an event where the person brought on record is a legal representatives, it must be taken to be consonant with justice and principle that in the absence of fraud or collusion, the bringing on record of such a legal representative is sufficient to prevent the suit or the appeal from abating. In such an event where the person brought on record is a legal representatives, it must be taken to be consonant with justice and principle that in the absence of fraud or collusion, the bringing on record of such a legal representative is sufficient to prevent the suit or the appeal from abating. Reference was made to a number of decisions, such as (3) State of Punjab V. Nathu Ram (A.I.R.1962 Supreme Court 89), (4) Ram Sarup V. Munshi (A.I R. 1963 Supreme Court 553) and (5) Kadir Mohideen V. Muthukrishna Ayyar (I.L.R.26 Madras 230). It has also been laid down therein that although in such circumstance the appeal cannot be taken to have abated, it should nevertheless be the duty of the appellant, if the matter be brought to his notice, to implead the heir or legal representative left out so that the appeal could be properly constituted. In the other decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (2) Dalai Maliko and others V. Krishna Chandra Patnaik and others (A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 49), on the death of the appellant, some of the heirs, being the widow and a major son of the deceased appellant, were brought on the record within time, there being no objection to the application for bringing on record the widow and the son of the deceased. In course of the second appeal in the High Court, it was discovered that the appellant had left three other heirs, namely, a minor son, a married daughter and an unmarried daughter. There an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the appeal before the Subordinate Judge had abated in toto for failure to bring on the record the three other legal representatives of the deceased appellant. This contention was accepted in the High Court of Orissa on the ground that as three heirs had been left out and as there could be no question of want of knowledge of the existence of these heirs on the part of the widow and the major son who had applied for being brought on record, the entire appeal abated. This contention was accepted in the High Court of Orissa on the ground that as three heirs had been left out and as there could be no question of want of knowledge of the existence of these heirs on the part of the widow and the major son who had applied for being brought on record, the entire appeal abated. This decision of the Orissa High Court was, however, set aside by the Supreme Court taking the view that although it was not a case where there could be any question of bona fide inquiry because the appellants were aware of the death of Dolai Maliko, the appellant, and who the heirs of the deceased plaintiff-appellant before the Subordinate Judge were, but their Lordships observed: "Even so we are of opinion that unless there is fraud or collusion or there are other circumstances which indicate that there has not been a fair or real trial or that against the absent heir there was a special case which was not and could not be tried in the proceeding, there is no reason why heirs who have applied for being brought on record should not be held to represent the entire estate including to the interests of the heirs not brought on the record. This is not say that where heirs of an appellant are to be brought on record all of them should not be brought on record and any of them should be deliberately left out. But if by oversight or on account of some doubt as to who are the heirs, any heir of a deceased appellant is left out, that in itself would be no reason for holding that the entire estate of the deceased is not represented unless circumstances like fraud or collusion to which we have referred above exist." Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of these unambiguous pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the above two cases, any other decision of this Court or of any other High Court to which a reference may be made in support of the contention that where all the heirs and legal representatives are not brought on the record by the plaintiff or appellant, the suit or appeal must be deemed to abate in whole or in part, as the case may be, is no longer good law. What the Court is required to see is whether those heirs brought on the record or on record actually represent the interest of those legal representatives of the deceased who have been left out. 5. In the present case, as already indicated, an application was filed within time and the son of the deceased respondent and also his four grandsons, being the sons of a pre-deceased son, were duly brought on the record, leaving out only the widow of the pre-deceased son, named Ram Sundari Devi. The decision is covered entirely by the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, because it cannot be doubted that the son of the deceased respondent, apart from his grandsons, did substantially represent the estate of deceased respondent. Reference in particular may be made to the decision in the case of (6) Ishwarlal Laxmichand V. Kuber Mohan (A. I. R. 1943 Bombay 457), referred to by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dolai Maliko's case aforesaid, which is on all fours (sic) with the facts of the present case. In that case also, on the death of the appellant, his son was brought on the record as heir on his application and the widow, who was also an heir, was left out. It was held by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court that both the son and the widow should have applied for being brought on the record, but the mere fact that the widow did not apply for being brought on the record in time, and as such was not brought on record, would not affect the competency of the appeal as the estate was fully represented by the son. What the Court is required, therefore, to do in the circumstances, of the case is to see whether the estate is fully represented by the heirs brought on record or not unless there be any fraud or collusion involved in leaving out some of the heirs. 6. That being the position, it must be held that the court of appeal below was in error in holding that Title Appeal No. 93/19 of 1962 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Chapra, had abated as a whole. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The decision of the court of appeal below is set aside and the appeal is remanded to that court for being heard on merits. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The decision of the court of appeal below is set aside and the appeal is remanded to that court for being heard on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant states further that an application was already made in the court of appeal below for bringing on record Mossomat Eam Sundari Devi, widow of the pre-deceased son of the deceased respondent. It is clear in view of the above direction that the court of appeal below will bring her on record duly. The cost will abide the result. P. K. BANERJI, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.