JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgement and decree of the District Judge, Ajmer, dated February 20, 1971, whereby he reversed the judgement and decree of the Civil Judge, Beawar, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs Jugraj and Mishri Lal. During the pendency of the appeal the sole appellant Bhairoonmal as well as one of the respondents Jugraj died, and their legal representatives were brought on the record within the time prescribed. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 Mishri Lal also died. According to the legal representatives of deceased Mishri Lal, Mishri Lal died on November 27, 1973, whereas, according to the appellants, he died on April 24, 1974. An inquiry was made in order to find out whether Mishri Lal died on November 27, 1973 or April 24, 1974. Both the parties filed affidavits and documentary evidence. 2. It is common ground between the parties that Mishri Lal died at village Birathia Khurd, a village 10 miles away from Bearwar. Death certificate as well as various other letters and entries in the account books were produced on behalf of the legal representatives of Mishri Lal to show that Mishri Lal died on November 27, 1973. There is thus overwhelming evidence to prove that Mishri Lal, in fact, died on November 27, 1973. The learned counsel for the appellants moved an application for impleading legal representatives of Mishri Lal, in the first instance on July 1, 1974. The appellants also moved an application for setting aside the abatement on the ground that they came to know about the death of Mishri Lal in the last week of June, 1974. One of the appellants, namely, Hukmi Chand appeared in the witness box and deposed that in the last week of June, 1974, he was informed by Hira Lal that Mishri Lal had died about two months ago. I have gone through the statement of Hukmi Chand which is not at all convincing. In the first place, Hira lal has not been examined to support the version of Hukmi Chand that the former told the latter in the month of June, 1974, about the death of Mishri Lal. Hikmi Chand, in his statement, admitted that his house and Misri Lal's house are situate just close to each other and have a common entrance and in between the two houses, there is a common wall. Hikmi Chand, in his statement, admitted that his house and Misri Lal's house are situate just close to each other and have a common entrance and in between the two houses, there is a common wall. Both these houses are situated at Beawar. Looking to the situation of the houses of the parties, it is difficult to believe that Hukmi Chand came to know about the death of Mishri Lal from Hira lal in the month of June, 1974. The Appellants have failed to prove that they were prevented by any sufficient cause to being on record the legal representatives of Mishri Lal within the prescribed time. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since Mishri Lal and Jugraj constituted a joint Hindu family, the legal representative of Jugraj, namely, Jawari Lal, fully represented the estate of the deceased Mishri Lal. According to him, because Jawari Lal was on the record the appeal cannot be held to have been abated. There is however no substance in the above contention as there is no reliable proof that Jugraj and Mishri Lal constituted a joint Hindu family. 4. Since the appellants have failed to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Mishri Lal within the time prescribed, the appeal cannot proceed and deserves to be dismissed as having abated. 5. I accordingly dismiss the appeal as having abated. 6. The parties are left to bear their own costs in this court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for grant of leave to appeal to a Division Bench, which is refused. *******