JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J. : By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quasl1ing the orders dated 16th July, 1998 (Annexure 3) and 13th May, 1997 (Annexure 1) passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Briefly stated, the suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed on 20th April, 1987 by the plaintiffs Dharam Veer and Ved Prakash jointly against the petitioner for ejectment from the land in dispute. The suit was numbered as 22/02 of 1986-87. S. According to the case of the petitioner, a written statement was filed by the petitioner denying the plaint averments. However, during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff no. 2 Ved Prakash died and on the substitution application filed by the heirs of late Ved Prakash, respondents no. 3 to 7 were substituted on 20.3.1990. 4. Thereafter, Dharamveer also died on 31.1.1995 during the pendency of the suit. The heir of Dharamveer plaintiff no. 1 has moved an application for substitution on 9th January, 1996 along with the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. On which, the petitioner has filed his objection on 13.6.1996. 5. On 13.5.1997, the substitution application was rejected and the trial court has held that the suit having been abated in respect of plaintiff no. 1 Dharamveer and thereafter, the said order has become final as Balbir Singh and other heirs of Dharamveer did not prefer any revision or appeal challenging the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 13.5.1997 abating whole suit by which it was rejected. Assistant Collector passed an order that on account of Sri Dharamveer and Ved Prakash, the whole suit will not abate. 6. The petitioner has filed a revision before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division challenging the order passed Assistant Collector and has recorded a finding that the whole suit cannot be abated. The revision was dismissed on 16th July, 1998. 7. The petitioner thereafter has further challenged the said order before the Board of Revenue, Allahabad on the ground that right to sue does not survive. 8. The application of the petitioner for abating the whole suit was rejected. The petitioner has filed a revision before the Commissioner on the ground that on account of abatement on the death of Sri Dharamveer, the whole suit has abated. 8. The application of the petitioner for abating the whole suit was rejected. The petitioner has filed a revision before the Commissioner on the ground that on account of abatement on the death of Sri Dharamveer, the whole suit has abated. The revisional court has recorded a finding that on account of the death of Sri Dharamveer, the whole suit will not abate. The order was confirmed from the Board of Revenue. 9. Order 22 Rule 1 provides that the death of plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives. Order 22 Rule 1 is quoted below : "1. No abatement by party's death, if right to sue survives.- The death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives." 10. Order 22 Rule 3 provides were one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sale plaintiff or sale surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. 11. Further sub-clause (2) provides as under : "(2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff." 12. As will appear from the facts of the case that admittedly no steps were taken to challenge the order rejecting the substitution application in the case of Dharmvir, the same having become final, however, steps were taken to substitute the heirs of the plaintiff no. 2 and the same having become final, the suit as a whole shall not abate on account of the death of Ved Prakash and the estate is fully referred. 13. Further the reference is being made on Section 2(11), where the word "legal representative" has been defined. 2 and the same having become final, the suit as a whole shall not abate on account of the death of Ved Prakash and the estate is fully referred. 13. Further the reference is being made on Section 2(11), where the word "legal representative" has been defined. It reads as under : "(11) "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and in- cludes any person who inter-med-dles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued." 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ramji Srivastava has submitted that the courts below have held that the whole suit shall not abate when in point of fact, entire suit has abated. 15. A perusal of the plaint shows that the suit has been filed under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act for eviction of the defendants and also for possession to the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs are bhumidhars and have transferable rights in respect of Khasra' No. 66/1 area 1.1.06 and Khasra No. 66/2 area 1-66 acre of Village Jaspur Khurd, Tehsil Kashipur and as such the suit will not abate as according to the plaint averments both the plaintiffs have claimed the bhumidhari rights and the defendants being unauthorized occupant have encroached and the plaintiff Ved Prakash has every right to file a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 16. I have gone through the plaint averments. In my opinion, suit as a whole will not abate on account of the death of Sri Dharamveer in as much as the right to sue survives to the co-plaintiff and both of them have claimed eviction. It is settled law that one co-owner is the owner of every inch of the property as held in Sri Ram Pasricha versus Jagannath and others 1976 AIR SC Page 2335. 17. In T. Lakhsmipathi and others versus P. Nithyananda Reddy and others 2003 (5) SCC 150, the Apex Court has held as under : "The law as to co-owners is well settled. 17. In T. Lakhsmipathi and others versus P. Nithyananda Reddy and others 2003 (5) SCC 150, the Apex Court has held as under : "The law as to co-owners is well settled. Where any property is held by several co-owners, each co-owners has interest in every inch of the common property, but his interest is qualified and limited by similar interest of the other co-owners." 18. Since the heirs of Ved Prakash intermeddle with the estate of the deceased, the suit cannot be abated as a whole. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition' fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.