Judgment N. Pandey, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against an order dated 3.1.1987, whereby, the 4th Additional Sub-ordinate Judge. Motihari, held that the suit stands abated in absence of the heirs of plaintiff No.5. 2. The salient question, which emerges for consideration in this case would be when some of the heirs of the deceased plaintiff are already on the record and the rest of the heirs are not substituted, whether the proceeding becomes defective and abates or whether by application of the principle of representation by the heirs on record, the proceeding does not abate. 3. In order to answer the question, mentioned above, it would be essential to have a brief survey of the salient facts. The plaintiffs brought the instant suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or, in aiternative, recovery of possession with respect of the suit properties. On 1.9.1986 a petition was filed on behalf of the defendants that gyaneshwar Tiwary (plaintiff No.5) died on 5.7.1984 leaving behind his widow Shanti devi as his legal heir. But the plaintiffs failed to substitute Shanti Devi within the prescribed period. Therefore, the suit stood abated. 4. In the first instance on 2.9.1986 a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs stating that Gyaneshwar Tiwary died without leaving any widow. But later two separate petitions were filed on 17.12.1986 and 18.12.1986 giving the names of the heirs to be substituted in place of plaintiff No.1, who died on 4.11.1986. In the petition dated 18.12.1986 although names of the heirs of plaintiff No.1 and the wife of plaintiff No.5 were mentioned but a prayer was made that after expunging the name of plaintiff No.1, names of those heirs be substituted. The court beiow held since the plaintiffs admitted in their petition dated 18.12.1986 that gyaneshwar Tiwary (plaintiff No.5)died leaving behind his widow Shanti Kuer but no prayer was made to substitute her as his legal representative, the suit stands abated in absence of substitution of Shanti Devi. 5. Undisputedly, all other co-sharers of plaintiff No.5 except his widow were already on record. It is also admitted that the sale deed with respect to the suit land stands in the name of plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4. 5. Undisputedly, all other co-sharers of plaintiff No.5 except his widow were already on record. It is also admitted that the sale deed with respect to the suit land stands in the name of plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4. But since all the plaintiff had joined the suit for declaration of their title and possession, this cannot be denied that the widow of plaintiff No.5 was a necessary party to the suit. 6. But in the circumstances of the case, since all the co-sharers and the purchasers of the land were on the record, the right to sue on behalf of the plaintiff No.5 survived, even his widow was not substituted in time. It is well settled that one of the various co-owners of property, if in possession, will be deemed to be in possession on behalf of all the co-owners, and his possession could not be regarded as adverse to other co-owners, unless there was distinct proof of ouster. The interest of an individual co-owner or co-sharer must be taken to cover entire land, which may be the subject matter of dispute as belonging to the co-owners. In such a situation, a co-sharers suit must be held to be maintainable without impleading other co-sharers. In the case of Johar Uraon (Ekka) and Anr. V/s. Sitaram sao (Bhagat) and Ors, as well as Sahdeo singh and Ors. V/s. Ram Chhabila Singh and ors.2, also this Court had taken a similar view holding that a suit by one of the joint owners to obtain possession by evicting a trespasser is maintainable even though other joint-owners are not impieaded parties. When one of the plaintiffs, who was a joint owner, dies, the right to sue survives in the other plaintiffs ana in such a case, there shall be no question of abatement. In this regard, reference can also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in these cases; Dolai Maliko and Ors. V/s. Krushna chandra Patnaik and Ors. Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram and Ors. Mohammed Arif v allah Rabbul Alamin and Ors. and yet to a decision of the Full Bench decision of this court in me case of Jagannath Singh and ors. V/s. Srimati Singhashan Kuer and Ors. V/s. Krushna chandra Patnaik and Ors. Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram and Ors. Mohammed Arif v allah Rabbul Alamin and Ors. and yet to a decision of the Full Bench decision of this court in me case of Jagannath Singh and ors. V/s. Srimati Singhashan Kuer and Ors. (F. B.)In the case before me, there appears no dispute that in the petition dated 18.12.1986 as filed under Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 of the code of Civil Procedure, name of Mostt. Shanti Kuer, daughter of Singhashan Pathak and wife of Gyaneshwar Tiwary (Plaintiff No 5) was mentioned. But in the prayer portion due to inadvertence it was stated that after expunging the name of plaintiff No.1. names of all the heirs including Shanti Kuer be substituted. 7. Having noticed different decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court 1 have already held that in a case where one or more heirs of the deceased plaintiff or defendant are on record, the estate is fully represented in the suit. This also includes a case where some of the heirs are coming on the record at their own initiative, because such heirs would certainly represent the estate of the deceased. 8. The Full Bench decision, as noticed above, further indicates that in a case where due to over-sight or on account of a doubt as to who are the heirs, any heir is left out to be brought on record, still the estate of the deceased is fully represented by the heirs already on record. The leftout heirs may subsequently apply to be brought on record, but there will be no abatement. Therefore, in the present case since the widow of plaintiff No.5 was already brought on record by the petition dated 18.12.1986 but due to oversight no prayer was made for her substitution in place of plaintiff No.5, it would not be proper on such a technical plea to hold that the suit has abated. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, contended that in absence of substitution of the widow of plaintiff No.5, a class i heir would not save the suit from abatement. Because as per the provisions of Hindu succession Act only in case of absence of a class I heir, the right of those, mentioned in class II, would arise. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, contended that in absence of substitution of the widow of plaintiff No.5, a class i heir would not save the suit from abatement. Because as per the provisions of Hindu succession Act only in case of absence of a class I heir, the right of those, mentioned in class II, would arise. Therefore, in absence of the widow of plaintiff No.5 on the record, it has to be held that the suit stands abated. Reference in this regard was made to a Full bench decision of this Court in the case of sudama Devi and Ors. V/s. Jogendra Choudhary and Ors. (F. B.) 10. In my view, the ratio laid down in the above mentioned case may not be available to the facts of the present case. This is not a case where the name of widow of plaintiff No.5 was at all disclosed. Because admittedly in the petition dated 18.12.1986 her name was disclosed as widow of Gyaneshwar Tiwary. Therefore, in view of the ration laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Jagannath singh and Ors. V/s. Srimati Singhashan Kuer and ors. (supra), in a case where due to over-sight some of the heirs are left out to be brought on record, still the estate of the deceased in fully represented by the heirs already on the record. 11. Therefore, having regard to the facts, noticed above, I am constrained to hold since the estate of plaintiff No.5 was fully represented by the surviving heirs and the name of the widow was also disclosed, there will be no question of any abatement of the suit. 12. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the judgment of the Court below is hereby set aside. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orde as to costs. Appeal allowed.