Short Note : 1. In the appeal appellant joined respondent Poonamchand, Bherulal and one Samanbai also. Notice of this appeal was served on Poonamchand who contested and against the two other respondents it was ex-parte. During the pendency of the appeal respondent No. 2 Bherulal died and no steps were taken by the plaintiff-appellant to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent Bherulal on record. Ultimately, on 17.4.1972 the appellant filed an application before the Court below alleging that although the legal representatives of respondent Bherulal have not been brought on record, still this appeal did not abate and could proceed against the remaining respondents. Respondent No. 1 Poonamchand contested this application and ultimately after healing this application the learned Additional District Judge found that the appeal has abated as a whole and could not proceed. It is against this that the present appeal has been filed. 2. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that as the lands in dispute were standing in the name of Poonamchand alone, the appeal could proceed against him. Learned lower appellate Court, after considering the various documents produced by the parties, found that on the three survey numbers which were in dispute the name of respondent Poonamchand alone was not recorded but the lands were recorded in the joint names of Poonamchand and Bherulal. The learned lower appellate Court also found that the plaintiff-appellant himself in his plaint had alleged that these survey numbers were attached in recovery proceedings against Poonamchand and Bherulal and it was further alleged that they were attached because they stood in the joint names of Poonamchand and Bherulal. It was because of this that the suit was filed for declaration so that the revenue records could be corrected. In this view of the matter the learned lower appellate Court found that Bherulal was a necessary party and in his absence the appeal could not proceed. 3. The learned lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff in his plaint himself a alleged that these lands were attached in recovery proceedings against Poonamchand and Bherulal as names of both these respondents were recorded in the revenue records. That is also the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court on the basis of various documents produced in evidence. That is also the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court on the basis of various documents produced in evidence. In view of this finding if could not be disputed that the suit could not proceed in absence of one of them. Consequently, the conclusions arrived at by the learned lower appellate Court could not be interfered with. Appeal dismissed.