JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - This appeal is directed against the order of the lower appellate Court holding the Title Appeal to have abated as a whole. 2. The Plaintiff-Appellants had instituted Title Suit No. 48 of 1976 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur for declaration of their right title and interest over schedule ?A? lands of the plaint and for recovery of possession after ejecting the Defendants who might be found to be in possession of the same. 3. The case of the Plaintiffs is that their ancestor Bakuli had acquired the suit lands in his own right and that after his death on 13-10-74 they came to possess the said lands. But since Plaintiff No. 1 was a young widow of Bakuli and Plaintiff No. 2 his son was aged only about one year at that time Defendant No. 4, the brother of Bakuli, and Defendant Nos. 5 and 6, his nephews, and the other Defendants who also are his relations, raised false disputes taking advantage of the helplessness of the Plaintiffs which resulted in some kind of local Panchayati in which the Plaintiffs and the Defendants were given half shares in the properties in question. The Plaintiffs? further case is that although the said Punch decision had no binding effect in law, Defendants 1 to 3 being,the sons of Bakuli?s other sister dispossessed them from the entire suit lands in June, 1975. 4. The suit was contested only by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 inter alia on the grounds that they had acquired title over the suit lands under a deed of gift executed by Bakuli and that the Plaintiffs were not his legal heirs. 5. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit on contest against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and ex parte against Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 on the findings that the deed of gift was genuine and that Plaintiff No. 1 was not the widow of Bakuli. 6. In the lower appellate Court, Defendant No. 4 died and an application by the Plaintiffs for substitution of his real representatives after setting aside abatement was rejected. ?heir further contention that in view of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 (4), CPC they may be exempted from substituting the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant No, 4, for the reasons discussed in the order was also rejected. 7. ?heir further contention that in view of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 (4), CPC they may be exempted from substituting the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant No, 4, for the reasons discussed in the order was also rejected. 7. The learned Additional District Judge, taking a view that on abatement of the suit against Defendant No. 4 the whole suit would abate, held that the appeal became incompetent and accordingly dismissed the same. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the Appellants submitted that inasmuch as the suit was for ejectment of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 only and in that view of the matter no prayer for eviction of Defendant No. 4 was essential on the latter?s death, the suit still survived because there could be no difficulty in passing a decree for ejectment of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from the suit lands. 9. In the first flash, the submission appeared to be attractive, but on a closer examination, I am unable to accept the submission. I have seen the findings recorded by the trial Court which will be deemed to be operative in favour of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Defendant No. 4. In view of the fact that the Court can grant the relief of ejectment of Defendant No. 3 only on a finding that the Plaintiffs have title, it cannot be done as the findings of the trial Court that the Plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Bakuli, which finding has been recorded in the presence of Defendant No. 4, cannot be upset in the absence of his legal representatives and heirs as in that event, it will give rise to two conflicting findings which cannot co-exist. The Court on appeal has therefore taken a correct view of the matter and there is no merit in this appeal. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but I shall not burden the Appellants with the liability of costs. Final Result : Dismissed