Short Note : 1. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by one Kubersingh, since deceased whose legal representatives (respondents Nos. 1 to 4) have been brought on record. The plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff and the defendants were members of a joint Hindu family, that a partition had taken place between the members of the joint Hindu family, but the suit land, which was a joint family property, was not partitioned. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed partition of the suit property. The suit was resisted by the defendant-appellants inter alia on the ground that the suit property was the self-acquired property of defendant Mukundsingh. This contention was not upheld and the trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition. On appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were upheld. The appellants have, therefore, preferred this second appeal. 2. Held : At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents contended that as the appellants had failed to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent Madhosingh, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The contention must be upheld. Defendant Madhosingh was admittedly a member of the joint Hindu family and was a necessary party in a suit for partition. The failure to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Madhosingh must inevitably lead to the dismissal of the appeal in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in R.P. Gupta v. Murli Prasad, AIR 1972 SC 1181 , relied on. Appeal dismissed as abated.