JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the decree and Judgment dated December 15, 1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, dismissing the First Appeal No. 86 of 1970-71 arising out of a suit No. 18/9/2 of 1970 under Section 209, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Respondents, Chandrabali Singh and others had filed a suit claiming to be Sir-holders before abolition of Zamindari and Bhumidhars after the abolition of Zamindari of certain plots situated in village Sarai Khwaja, and seeking the ejectment of the defendant-appellants contested the suit by alleging that they were in possession of the land for more than twenty years and had become Sirdars in accordance with law. They also claimed that the land in suit was not identifiable on the spot. Both the courts below have held the defendant-appellants to be trespassers without any title and have decreed the suit. 4. The first ground taken in the second appeal is that the suit having been filed in the name of three dead persons was not maintainable. It would appear that Srimati Sukhraj Kunwari is mentioned as plaintiff No. 11 in the plaint, and according to the statement of P.W.I. Jagdish Singh, who is himself the son of Surendra Pratap Singh, one of the plaintiffs, Srimati Sukhraj Kunwari has died fourteen years back. Likewise, according to his statement Jagadamba Prasad Singh, plaintiff No. 6, and Girija Prasad Singh, plaintiff No. 2, have also died a few years back. Thus, out of the twelve plaintiffs three were already dead when the plaint was filed. The question arises whether a plaint by or on behalf of dead persons is maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondents has cited two decisions in this connection. One is Currimbhoy and Co. v. L.A. Creet, A.I.R. 1930 Cal. 113 in which it has been held that one of the several co-owners can maintain an action against a trespasser without joining the other co-owners as parties to the action. The other is Ambika v. Rameshwari, A.I.R. 1946 Oudh 221 in which it has been held that the claim of a co-sharer to eject the trespasser cannot be affected by his failure to implead other co-sharers. 5. The other is Ambika v. Rameshwari, A.I.R. 1946 Oudh 221 in which it has been held that the claim of a co-sharer to eject the trespasser cannot be affected by his failure to implead other co-sharers. 5. These rulings, however, do not held in deciding whether a plaint can be filed by a dead person or on behalf of a dead person. Supposing some of the co-sharers are dead, the remaining co-sharers may file a suit themselves or may implead the heirs of the deceased. But it would certainly constitute fraud and material irregularity if the dead persons are shown to be plaintiffs. In such an event the plaint itself is vitiated and the plaintiffs must suffer the consequences of this fraud or material irregularity. No explanation has been shown at all as to how names of persons who died fourteen years and ten years ago were arrayed as plaintiffs. In the absence of such explanation, I hold that the plaint is improperly constituted and the suit could not have been decreed. 6. The appellants have challenged the verdict of the lower court on merit also. I cannot go into the merits of the case as the suit deserves to be dismissed on the ground of its being filed in the names of dead persons. 7. The result is that I hereby allow the second appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The suit stands dismissed on the ground of having been filed on behalf of head persons.