JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree by the Additional District Judge, Alwar who dismissed the plaintiff's appeal filed in the lower appellate court as having abated on account of the death of respondent-defendant No.2 Hajari Lal. 2. The plaintiff Ram Lal claimed the 'Chowk' in question to be the joint property of himself and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Kundan Lal and Hajari Lal respectively. No relief was claimed against Hajari Lal but only a perpetual injunction was prayed for against Kundan Lal, defendant No.1 for restraining him from interfering with the joint possession of the plaintiff Kundan Lal alone contested the appeal denying the plaintiff's right to the 'Chowk' in question. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff Ram Lal filed appeal and during the pendency of the appeal respondent No.2 Hajari Lal died on 15th July, 1971. The defendant No.1 filed an application that the legal representatives of Hajari Lal having not been brought on the record the appeal bated and must be dismissed as such. This contention found favour with the lower court and the appeal was dismissed. 3. It may be pointed out that Hajari Lal was made only a proforma defendant, in as much as no relief was claimed against him and a perpetual injunction was claimed only against Kundan Lal. The plaintiff Ram Lal only claimed his joint right to the 'Chowk' along with the two defendants. Thus the deceased defendant Hajari Lal was not a necessary party to the suit or to the appeal and, in fact, had no interest in the litigation, inasmuch as he even did not put in appearance. Thus there will be no abatement on account of the plaintiff's failure to being in the legal representatives of Hajari Lal, who was only a proforma defendant-respondent, on record. 4. Accordingly, I allow this appeal, set aside the judgement and decree by the learned Additional District Judge, Alwar, dated 23rd April, 1974 and remand the case to him for decision of the appeal on merits. There will be no order as to costs. *******