Judgment :- 1. Whether a suit will abate on the death of the sole plaintiff when the sole defendant on record is one of his heirs, is the question involved in this revision petition. 2. Under Order XXII R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure when a sole plaintiff dies, the Court on application made on that behalf shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. 3. A legal representative according to the definition in S.2 (11) of the Code means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person. The respondent in this case no doubt is an heir of the deceased plaintiff and in that capacity he is one among the group of persons who represent the estate of the deceased. His interest in the estate is, however, limited only to a share therein and, therefore, he is not competent to represent the whole estate. The rule is, when there are more than one legal representative all of them should be brought on record and if any of them refuses to join as plaintiff, he should be made a defendant 4. Apparently placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dayaram v. Shamsundari (AIR. 1965 SC. 1049) an argument is put forward that as the defendant who is one of the sons of the deceased is already on record, 'here is sufficient representation of the estate of the deceased and, therefore, there is no abatement of the suit. The decision lays down the doctrine of sufficient representation when there are more than one legal representative. It can have no application in cases where there is conflict of interest between the legal representatives on record an those not on record or to cases where the trial of the case can proceed only if the legal representatives not on record are also impleaded. 5. In the instant case, the suit was filed for arrears of maintenance due to the plaintiff from the defendant under a registered agreement. On the death of the plaintiff, a share in the arrears claimed devolved on the defendant. So far as this share is concerned, there is no scope for any trial. 5. In the instant case, the suit was filed for arrears of maintenance due to the plaintiff from the defendant under a registered agreement. On the death of the plaintiff, a share in the arrears claimed devolved on the defendant. So far as this share is concerned, there is no scope for any trial. The real trial, it there is to be one, would only be between the revision petitioners who are the other heirs of the deceased and the defendant-respondent. There is thus conflict of interest between the revision petitioners and the respondent. The respondent has special interest which is detrimental to the interest of the other legal representatives and may not, in the usual course, safeguard the interest of the other legal representatives. It is thus obvious that he does not represent the other legal representatives. 6. A person who is a legal representative of the plaintiff should also be in a position to proceed with the litigation as the deceased plaintiff would have done. A person cannot litigate against himself. Therefore, though an heir of the plaintiff, the defendant alone will not be able to proceed with the litigation. It is thus obvious that there has been no sufficient representation of the estate of the deceased plaintiff as laid down by the Supreme Court in Dayaram v. Shamsundari (1965 SC. 1049). The suit has, therefore, abated on account of the omission of the revision petitioners to bring themselves on record within the period fixed by the Statute of Limitation. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.