JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1-10-1973 passed by Shri G.S. Seth, Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, in appeal No. 617, arising out of suit No. 277/1018 of 1969 under Sections 229-B/176 of the 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. The appellant No. 1, Leela, has died. The other appellant, Dularey, is his brother. On 17-5-1979, an application has been moved on behalf of the sons of Leela that Leela has died in August 1978 and that they should be substituted as his heirs. Against this, an objection along with an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents to the effect that Leela died on 20-12-1976 and the substitution application was time-ban ed. This application has also been supported by a certificate of the Pradban of the Gram Sabha to the effect that Leela died on 20-12-1976. 4. It is significant to note that the application of the sons of Leela neither states the exact date of death of Leela nor is accompanied by any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the application of the respondents gives exact date of death i.e. 20-12-1976 and is also supported by the important documentary evidence in the form of certificate of Pradhan of the Gram Sabha I, therefore, hold that the correct date of death of the deceased is 20-12-1976. 5. Whether the death occurred on 20-12-1976 or in August 1978 the application for substitution is time-barred in neither case. The heirs are grown up sons of the deceased. They thus cannot take the plea that they did not know of the death of their father, nor the plea that they had no knowledge of the appeal is a good ground for condonation of the delay. Lack of knowledge of the appeal may be taken to be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay where the heir is either minor or an illiterate and uneducated widow, but it is not a sufficient ground here as the heirs are the major sons. 6. The result is that I hereby hold that the second appeal has abated under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground of non-substitution of the heirs of the deceased appellant within the period of the limitation.