ORAL JUDGMENT :- The original plaintiff has by this second appeal challenged reversing judgment and decree dated 29-6-2005 delivered by 10th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in regular Civil Appeal No. 463 of 2000. The suit was filed by present appellant vide special Civil Suit No. 554 of 1986 against present respondent No. 1 Smt. Shobha for grant of specific performance and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 50,100/-. The agreement dated 30-91985 was with one Subhadrabai w/o Rambhau Kolhe and suit as filed on 4-121986 was also against Subhadrabai. Subhadrabai expired during pendency of suit on 12-6-1990. Thereafter present respondent Shobha was brought on record as her legal representative and daughter. The trial Court decreed the suit on 30-7-1992. 2. The reason given by Appellate Court for reversing the judgment of trial Court is that present appellant/plaintiff did not bring on record husband of Subhadrabai by name Rambhau Kolhe in civil suit and as such specific performance could not be granted. The Appellate Court has, therefore, ordered Shobha-present respondent to refund proportionate amount of earnest to the appellant. This Court has admitted the second appeal on 6-4-2007 by framing the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree for specific performance of contract solely on the ground that one of the legal heirs of deceased Subhadrabai was not brought on record and the suit against the respondent also abated, without considering the conduct of the respondent and Rambhau Kolhe, specially when an application was filed by the plaintiff for bringing both the legal heirs of deceased Subhadrabai on record." While admitting the matter, this Court found that Rambhau Kolhe was changing his stand and, therefore, notice was also issued to him to show cause as to why he should not be joined as party-respondent in the present second appeal. Accordingly, Rambhau appeared after he was served through paper publication and this Court on 8-2-2008 after hearing Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for respondent No, 1 and also Counsel for Rambhau, directed Rambhau to be brought on record as respondent No. 2 for the purposes of deciding question as formulated without prejudice to the rights of present respondent Shobha or said Rambhau. Accordingly, Rambhau has been added as respondent No.2. 3. Accordingly, Rambhau has been added as respondent No.2. 3. In this background, I have heard Advocate Shri S. P. Hedaoo with Advocate Shri R. N. Patil for appellant/plaintiff, Advocate Shri S. A. Deo for respondent No. 1 Shobha and Advocate Shri A. Y. Pathak for respondent No.2 Rambhau. 4. Advocate Hedaoo has contended that trial Court has found that present appellant has proved agreement for sale dated 30-9-1985, payment of earnest money of Rs. 22,000/- to Subhadrabai, that total consideration was fixed at Rs. 77,000/-, that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract by paying remaining consideration. In view of these findings, trial Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to claim refund of Rs. 50,100/- with interest by way of damages and she was entitled to specific performance. It found that defendant (present respondent) could not prove that transaction was a loan transaction and agreement was a security for loan amount. It is to be noticed that the total amount as paid by present appellant to Subhadrabai as recorded by trial Court in paragraph 15 of its judgment is Rs. 43,000/-. He contends that all these findings are maintained even by lower Appellate Court. However, lower Appellate Court has found that after Subhadrabai expired, her daughter only was brought on record and her husband who was also legal heir was not brought on record and consequently lower Appellate Court held that suit abated against Rambhau only. He contends that in view of this, the lower Appellate Court found that it was not in position to evaluate the market price and half share of Shobha in the suit property and, therefore, it ordered refund of 50% only of total amount paid by appellant-plaintiff to Subhadrabai. Advocate Hedaoo argues that this exercise undertaken by lower Appellate Court is totally arbitrary and unsustainable. He invites attention to application at Exh.90 on record of trial Court to point out that after death of Subhadrabai on 12-6-1990, on 7-8-1990 said application was moved by present appellant seeking permission to bring her legal heirs on record. It was expressly mentioned therein that present respondent Shobha was daughter of Subhadrabai and Rambhau Marotrao Kolhe was her husband and as such, prayer was made to permit both of them to be brought on record in place of Subhadrabai as defendants. It was expressly mentioned therein that present respondent Shobha was daughter of Subhadrabai and Rambhau Marotrao Kolhe was her husband and as such, prayer was made to permit both of them to be brought on record in place of Subhadrabai as defendants. On the said application, respondent No.2 Rambhau recorded his say on 14-3-1991 expressing that he has no concern with the case. On 22-3-1991 trial Court permitted Shobha to be brought on record holding Rambhau not to be legal heir of Subhadrabai. Advocate Hedaoo contends that in view of this express order, appellant-plaintiff had no option but to bring Shobha alone on record. He further states that this order was not challenged either by Shobha or by Rambhau and it attained ~finality. He also invites attention to application at ExhAO again moved by Rambhau and pointed out that such application was ordered to be filed on 21-6-1991. He contends that even then order was not challenged by either of the respondents. The appeal was then filed by respondent No. 1 Shobha before the District Court and in the said appeal Shobha moved application under Order VI, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code for amendment of memo of appeal and another application under the same provisions for amendment of written statement. The plea of non-joinder of Rambhau Kolhe as party-defendant before the trial Court and its effect was sought to be incorporated and that amendment was allowed on 13-4-2004. Thereafter, present appellant moved another application vide Exh. 15 for joining said Rambhau as either appellant No. 2 or as respondent and to remit necessary issue to the trial Court with direction to trial Court to record his evidence and remit its finding on the said issue back to the Appellate Court. The application came to be rejected on 30-4-2005. Advocate Hedaoo therefore contends that never effort was made by Rambhau for not joining him as party-defendant and he did not file appeal also. In this background he places reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1965 SC 1049 , Daya Ram and others vs. Shyam Sundari and others and AIR 1966 SC 792 , N K. Mohd. Sulaiman Sahib vs. N C. Mohd. Ismail Saheb and others to contend that suit cannot abate in such circumstances. Recent judgment of this Court reported at 2007(1) MhLJ. Sulaiman Sahib vs. N C. Mohd. Ismail Saheb and others to contend that suit cannot abate in such circumstances. Recent judgment of this Court reported at 2007(1) MhLJ. 467 , Ramu Oabdu Gavade vs. Ramchandra Vishnu Kulkarni and others is also relied upon for this purpose. He also points out that reliance by lower Appellate Court upon judgment of this Court reported at 2003(2) Mh.LJ. 236 , Parvez Rustom Nekoo vs. Rustom Ardeshir Nekoo in favour of respondent No..1 is misconceived. 5. Advocate Deo appearing for respondent No. 1 Shobha and appellant before lower appellate Court has contended that duty to bring all known legal heirs on record is cast by law upon appellant-plaintiff and facts demonstrate that the plaintiff did not discharge it. He contends that order below Exh.19 ought to have been challenged by present appellant before the appropriate forum as it was a wrong order. He further states that after that order also Rambhau made serious efforts to come on record before the trial Court, but trial Court ignored those applications. According to him in such circumstances, it was not necessary for either Rambhau or respondent No. 1 Shobha to challenge these orders. He contends that even before lower Appellate Court though present respondent No. 1 moved appropriate application and sought amendment of her memo of appeal to raise additional grounds and also amendment of her written statement to raise additional defences, no timely steps were taken by appellant-plaintiff to get Rambhau impleaded. He states that application-Exh.15 before learned lower Appellate Court was moved after the appeal was finally heard and closed for judgment. He points out that such application was, therefore, rejected not on merits of application but in view of the fact that once the matter was closed for judgment, the Court cannot take cognizance of such application. He strongly relies upon judgment reported in the case of Parvez Rustom Nekoo vs. Rustom Ardeshir Nekoo (supra) to substantiate his contention and argues that as the contract was for sale of entire property, it could not have been sub-divided and as such the learned lower Appellate Court has correctly refused to exercise its discretion in favour of appellant - plaintiff. He further argues that respondent No.1 is ready and willing to return the amount to appellant-plaintiff as directed by the lower Appellate Court. 6. He further argues that respondent No.1 is ready and willing to return the amount to appellant-plaintiff as directed by the lower Appellate Court. 6. Advocate Shri Pathak appearing for respondent No.2 adopts arguments of Advocate Shri Deo. In addition, he states that the question of any prejudice to respondent No. 2 Rambhau cannot be gone into in the present matter because necessary facts have not been placed on record by Rambhau as he never got opportunity to file any written statement before trial Court. He argues that burden to bring Rambhau on record was on appellant-plaintiff and hence, at the stage of second appeal, Rambhau cannot be heard on the question of prejudice or otherwise. He further argues that if this Court finds that Rambhau can be added as party even at this stage, the matter needs to be remanded back to trial Court for fresh trial in accordance with law giving opportunity to Rambhau to lead evidence. He states that finding of lower Appellate Court that suit has abated against Rambhau is legally sound and no substantial question of law for its reconsideration arises in this second appeal. He also relies to the judgment on which Advocate Deo has based reliance and in addition he also points out that in the case of Daya Ram and others vs. Shyam Sundari and others (supra), in paragraph 12 the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court also suggests that after addition of Rambhau to completely constitute the appeal, the appeal needs to be remanded back to trial Court. He, therefore, states that no interference is warranted in this second appeal and the appeal needs to be dismissed. 7. The facts, therefore, which are not in dispute reveal the efforts made by appellant-plaintiff to bring Rambhau on record. The suit has been filed against deceased Subhadrabai on 4-10-1986 and Subhadrabai herself had filed her written statement on 20-1-1987. It is not in dispute that she expired on 12-6-1990 and the application to bring her legal heirs was moved on 7-8-1990 by the present appellant. In paragraph 1 itself names of Shobha and Rambhau and their relationship with deceased is mentioned and prayer has been made to permit them to be brought on record in place of deceased Subhadrabai. Rambhau has personally received copy of this application (Exh.19) on 30-1-1991. In paragraph 1 itself names of Shobha and Rambhau and their relationship with deceased is mentioned and prayer has been made to permit them to be brought on record in place of deceased Subhadrabai. Rambhau has personally received copy of this application (Exh.19) on 30-1-1991. On the reverse of Exh.19 there are two independent replies recorded on behalf of Shobha and Rambhau. Counsel for Shobha has put a remark that application (Exh.19) was without any substance and husband cannot be brought on record as legal representative, and therefore, prayed for rejection of such application. Counsel for Rambhau has stated that 'application is opposed as this applicant Rambhau has no concern with the case'. This say is given on 14-3-1991. Thereafter trial Court has passed order as under: "Shobhabai be brought on record as legal heir. But, Rambhau cannot be legal heir of Subhadrabai. The amendment be made accordingly". In view of this order, Shobha was added as defendant on 22-3-1991 itself and she has filed her written statement on 10-6-1991. Even before collecting copy of Exh.19, Rambhau has filed application on 11-2-1990 vide Exh.27 for adjournment in which he has mentioned that Anusayabai (plaintiff) has filed Suit No. 554 of 1986 against him. He has moved another application on 18-1-1991 vide Exh.3l for adjournment and thereafter vide Exh.32 for copy of Exh.19. On 16-4-1991 he has filed application Exh.38 in Hindi objecting to Civil Suit No.554 of 1986 and for its dismissal. He has mentioned that after death of Subhadrabai, he has become owner and he has not been made party. On 21-61991 again he has moved more or less similar application vide Exh.40 and its copy was received by present respondent No. 1 Shobha. On this application the learned trial Court has passed order on the very same day that it was "filed". 8. In regular Civil Appeal No. 463 of 2000 filed by present respondent No. 1 Shobha on 30-8-2005 Rambhau has moved application seeking permission to make payment of the amount within 15 days as per the judgment and order dated 29-6-2005. The learned Presiding Officer has on 31-8-2005 passed orders on the said application allowing it and asking Nazir to accept the payment. The amount of Rs.21,500/- which respondent No.1 Shobha was directed to refund to present appellant formed subject-matter of this application filed by Rambhau. 9. The learned Presiding Officer has on 31-8-2005 passed orders on the said application allowing it and asking Nazir to accept the payment. The amount of Rs.21,500/- which respondent No.1 Shobha was directed to refund to present appellant formed subject-matter of this application filed by Rambhau. 9. Perusal of judgment of learned lower Appellate Court, in this background, shows that it formulated question about abatement of such as point No.5 and has considered it from paragraph No. 10 of its judgment onwards up to paragraph No. 17. In the process of consideration this aspect, it has relied upon judgment in the case of Parvez Rustom Nekoo vs. Rustom Ardeshir Nekoo (surpa) to note that as present applicant-plaintiff had knowledge of existence of Rambhau and his relationship with deceased Subhadrabai, it was his duty to bring Rambhau on record. It held that ordinarily when some of the legal heirs are brought on record, suit does not abate but when the litigant is aware of omission on his part to bring on record other legal heirs, law enjoins responsibility upon him to bring such legal heirs on record. It held that in the fact before it therefore, trial Court was wrong in not permitting Rambhau to be brought on record. It further held that for such fault of trial Court, the litigant must not suffer and suit at the most abate only against Rambhau. At the end of paragraph 25 while considering other points, it held that suit abated only against Rambhau did not abate against appellant Shobha. It is, in view of this finding that it then proceeded to consider point Nos. 6 and 7 framed by it together. By said questions it considered whether plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or whether to alternative relief of refund of Rs. 50,100/- with interest. From paragraph 25 onwards it has applied its mind to this aspect and it held that Shobha, appellant before it, could not have transferred entire plot to plaintiff. It further found that Shobha could have executed direct sale deed in respect of her own share but then proceeded to observe that plaintiff had agreed to purchase entire suit property for Rs. 77,000/- and had paid Rs. 43,000/-. After this, it has observed "] do not know what could be the value of the half share of the appellant in suit property ". 77,000/- and had paid Rs. 43,000/-. After this, it has observed "] do not know what could be the value of the half share of the appellant in suit property ". Then it has found that the death of Subhadrabai was an unforeseen circumstances and grant of specific performance of the contract would also involve some hardship. In paragraph 27 it found that total amount paid by plaintiff to Subhadra was Rs.43,000/- and, therefore, Shobha was liable to return half of it i.e. Rs. 21,500/- to other respondent-plaintiff before it. Accordingly it partly allowed the appeal by directing Shobha to refund amount of Rs. 21,500/- to plaintiff with 10% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% till realisation. 10. The perusal of judgment of this Court in case of Parvez Rustom Nekoo vs. Rustom Ardeshir Nekoo (supra) reveals that there the issue was being considered in review. The suit for ejectment and possession was filed and were decreed against said judgment and decree, two appeals were filed and in those appeals Mr. Parvez (appellant before High Court) sought himself to be impleaed as appellant as third party. District Court rejected that application. He approached High Court in civil revision and High Court granted him that permission. Thereafter the appeals were dismissed on merit by Additional District Judge, Pune which directed the appellant i.e. original defendant No. 1 to vacate the suit premises. Mr. Parvez then filed writ petition under Article 227 vide Writ Petition No. 2581 of 1991 before the High Court. During pendency of that writ petition, original defendant No.2 expired and hence Civil Application No. 4434 of 1988 to bring on record his two legal representatives was moved. Those two legal heirs were shown as I-A and I-B. This application was dismissed for non-removal of certain office objection against legal heir No. 1-B on 8-3-1999. Thereafter Civil Application No. 4434 of 1999 came for hearing and the High Court found that with dismissal of civil application against heir I-B, impugned decree for eviction had become final and as such main writ petition itself did not survive as it could result into two inconsistent decrees in one suit. The civil application was therefore rejected on 21-12-2000 and writ petition automatically stood dismissed as abated. Thereafter, Mr. The civil application was therefore rejected on 21-12-2000 and writ petition automatically stood dismissed as abated. Thereafter, Mr. Parvez moved Civil Application No. 171 of 2002 with a prayer to review order on Civil Application 4434 of 1999 and for restoration of Writ Petition No. 2581 of 2002 for its hearing on merits. It is in this background that this Court considered arguments and various case laws cited and noticed that interest of Mr. Parvez were adverse to the interest of deceased respondent. After noting this in paragraph 21, the contention that as one of the legal heirs was already on record, though in some other capacity, writ petition did not abate was taken up for consideration. Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Daya Ram and others vs. Shyam Sundari and others (supra) was thereafter noticed and it has been observed that once some of the legal heirs of deceased are brought on record, the proceedings do not abate. But, when petitioner is put on notice about his omission to implead other legal heirs, it becomes obligatory for him to bring on record such left out legal heir and it is not open for such petitioner to contend that as one of the legal heirs is already on record, proceedings does not abate. It is observed that in case before High Court, Parvez was aware of other legal representatives and had rightly moved application to bring them on record and having suffered adverse order in the process, he could not escape the legal consequences flowing there from. 11. This judgment of Hon'ble High Court i.e. Daya Ram and others vs. Shyam Sundari and others (supra) starts from consideration of Civil Suit No.9 of 1939 filed by Shyam Sundari for determining the third share of lands and for allotting the same to her. Prior thereto, brothers of her husband had filed a suit vide No. 20 of 1922 and this litigation ultimately resulted in a decree in favour of Shyam Sundari for possession of third share of plots specified. When she sought execution of that decree, there was some problem and ultimately it was held that she was not entitled to any specific portion of land and she was only given symbolic possession in Suit No. 20 of 1922. It was also observed that she ought to have filed separate suit for partition. When she sought execution of that decree, there was some problem and ultimately it was held that she was not entitled to any specific portion of land and she was only given symbolic possession in Suit No. 20 of 1922. It was also observed that she ought to have filed separate suit for partition. Accordingly, Suit No.9 of 1939 came to be filed. In that suit some orders were passed and ultimately her adversary Daya Ram approached the Hon'ble Apex Court. The High Court had granted certificate of fitness and appeal was declared admitted by the High Court on 27-11-1957. Sham Sundari died in April, 1959 and thereafter Daya Ram took steps to implead her legal representatives. Accordingly, they were substituted and thereafter they raised plea that appeal had abated because one son by name Kunwar Bahadur and a daughter by name Laxmibai of Sham Sundari were not brought on record. It is, in this background that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the question and held that; where a plaintiff or appellant after diligent and bona fide enquiry ascertains who the.1egal representatives of deceased defendant or respondent are and brings them on record within the time limited by law, there is no abatement of suit or appeal and impleaded legal representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased and that a decision obtained with them on record will bind not merely those impleaded but the entire estate including those not brought on record. It is noticed that where a person is brought on record to be a legal representative, it would be consonant with justice and principle that in the absence of fraud or collusion, the bringing on record of such a legal representative is sufficient to prevent the suit or appeal from abating. At the end of paragraph, therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court opined that appeal did not abate. In paragraph 10 Hon'ble Apex Court has considered its two earlier judgments but then the decree there was joint and indivisible one and, therefore, the possibility of coming into existence of two inconsistent decree has been looked into in paragraph 10 as a relevant circumstance. In facts before me, the death of Subhadrabai has taken place even before any decree was passed and as such there is no question of any inconsistent decree coming into existence. 12. The other judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of N K. Mohd. In facts before me, the death of Subhadrabai has taken place even before any decree was passed and as such there is no question of any inconsistent decree coming into existence. 12. The other judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of N K. Mohd. Sulaiman Sahib vs. Mohd. Ismail Saheb and others (supra) again reiterates the very same principle. It has been held in paragraph 5 that where defendant in a suit dies, the plaintiff has to after diligent and bona fide enquiry, implead all the legal representatives and the heirs so impleaded represent the estate of the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that decree so obtained against legal representatives on record binds not only those heirs but the entire estate including the interest of those who are not brought on record. 13. In view of this position, it is apparent that the plaintiff has to make bona fide enquiries and thereafter take steps to bring the legal heirs on record. In the facts of the case, therefore, it is apparent that immediately after death of Subhadrabai, appropriate steps were taken by appellant-plaintiff by making application at Exh.19. Respondent No.2 Rambhau was specifically sought to be brought on record as legal representatives of wife Subhadrabai. Participation of Rambhau in suit before he was served with copy of the said application Exh. 19 is already mentioned above. He engaged Advocate· and thereafter through that Advocate gave his say that he has no concern with the case. Present respondent' No. 1 Shobha also gave her say through Advocate that husband cannot be brought on record as legal representative. It is to be noticed that Code of Civil Procedure does not define legal heir but the phrase used therein is "legal representative" and a person who in law represents the estate of deceased person is treated as legal representative. The definition also includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. The provisions of law i.e. Order XXII, Rule 4 requires legal representatives of deceased defendant to be made a party. The trial Court has not in its order dated 23-2-1981 passed on Exh.19 assigned any reason but perhaps in view of statement made by present respondent No. 1 Shobha and Rambhau himself found that Rambhau cannot be legal representative of Subhadrabai. The trial Court has not in its order dated 23-2-1981 passed on Exh.19 assigned any reason but perhaps in view of statement made by present respondent No. 1 Shobha and Rambhau himself found that Rambhau cannot be legal representative of Subhadrabai. This Court has issued notice to Rambhau as to why he should not be joined as party-respondent in the present second appeal. Rambhau was again required to be served through paper publication and grievance was made by Advocate Hedaoo that. Rambhau should be asked to furnish his registered address on record. Till date, no such address has been. Furnished by Rambhau of his own. Rambhau has also not filed any reply on affidavit explaining his conduct. Neither Rambhau nor his daughter Shobha have stated anything on oath against the Advocates who recorded say on Exh.19. The trial Court having held that Rambhau was not legal representative. The present appellant proceeded further and added Shobha alone as legal representative of Subhadra. In view of this conduct Shobha also later on could not have contended that Rambhau ought to have been joined as ·party-defendant along with her. It is to be noted that neither Shobha nor Rambhau challenged order dated 22-3-1991. The contention that plaintiff ought to have challenged said order dated 22-3-1991 passed below Exh.19 is totally misconceived because plaintiff had moved appropriate application and in view of say given upon it both by Rambhau and Shobha, it was not necessary for him to insist that Rambhau, being husband should be treated as legal representative of Subhadrabai. Rambhau has continued to participate in the matter even thereafter and two applications moved by him in Hindi vide Exhs.38 and 40 are already mentioned by me above. In both the applications he has stated that he is the owner after death of his wife and he has not been joined as party and that the plaintiff was abusing process of law and wasting time of Courts. In Exh.40 he contended that he was not made party and Court as also the plaintiff would be responsible for any loss or damage caused to his property. However, he has not taken any steps either to seek review of order dated 22-3-1991 or to challenge it. During his arguments, Advocate Pathak for Rambhau has contended that Rambhau and Shobha both are Aadivasi. However, it was also stated that they belonged to scheduled caste, i.e. "mahar". However, he has not taken any steps either to seek review of order dated 22-3-1991 or to challenge it. During his arguments, Advocate Pathak for Rambhau has contended that Rambhau and Shobha both are Aadivasi. However, it was also stated that they belonged to scheduled caste, i.e. "mahar". In application Exh.38 Rambhau has used word as "Aadivasi Gand" to contend that property of Aadivasi cannot be purchased by anybody. Advocate Pathak has also tried to raise very same ground. The law in this respect only prohibits sale and purchase of agricultural property and admittedly the suit property is a residential plot and house on it. After the decree was passed in civil suit, Rambhau did not bother to file any appeal and after the appeal filed by his daughter was decided refusing specific performance and ordering refund of sale consideration, he moved application obviously on behalf of his daughter seeking permission to deposit amount of Rs.21,500/- and also seeking time of 15 days for that purpose which was allowed on 31-8-2001. 14. The conduct of Rambhau and Shobha, therefore, clearly show that they were only abusing the process of law and did not act honestly and Rambhau has failed to show his bona fides even in response to the notice issued by this Court. This Court in its order dated 6-4-2007 has found that Rambhau and Shobha were blowing hot and cold and came up with two contrary cases at two different stages. Such conduct of respondent and Rambhau could not have resulted in non-suiting the plaintiff and to a decree for specific performance of the contract. In these circumstances, in view of discussion above, it is clear that lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that suit abated against Rambhau only. Rambhau has not shown that there was any collusion between Shobha and present appellant nor the interest of Shobha was in any way adverse to him. It is therefore clear that Shobha has effectively and adequately represented the estate of Subhadrabai. The case was filed against Subhadrabai and after her death, the estate needed to be represented by her legal representative and Shobha has effectively discharged that obligation. The history mentioned above clearly shows that there was collusion between Shobha and Rambhau and both of them have tried to use the law to the detriment of appellant-plaintiff. The case was filed against Subhadrabai and after her death, the estate needed to be represented by her legal representative and Shobha has effectively discharged that obligation. The history mentioned above clearly shows that there was collusion between Shobha and Rambhau and both of them have tried to use the law to the detriment of appellant-plaintiff. Plaintiff acted honestly and diligently by moving application at Exh.19 and respondents have to blame themselves for their attempt to delay the decision of civil suit. They did not approach the Court with clean hands and there is nothing on record to doubt appellant's bona fides. Despite opportunity to him, Rambhau has failed even to point out any legal prejudice to him in entire process. I, therefore, find that learned Appellate Court was not right in holding that suit did not abate only against Shobha and it abated against Rambhau. The suit did not abate at all and as the estate was adequately represented, the view taken by the Appellate Court is unsustainable. The learned lower Appellate Court has also committed error while observing that it was not possible for it to find out value of half share of appellant Shobha in the suit property. However, in view of my findings above, the said consideration is rendered totally irrelevant. 15. It is apparent that right and interest of deceased Subhadrabai and her estate were sufficiently represented before the trial Court and, therefore, Rambhau need not have been brought on record as legal representative in the suit. By not bringing him on record, no prejudice is caused to the case and cause of the present appellant because Rambhau and Shobha had to blame themselves for the situation in which they have landed. Plaintiff cannot be made to suffer for respondent's improper conduct. Substantial question of law formulated is, therefore, answered in negative i.e. in favour of present appellant-plaintiff and against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The judgment and decree delivered by the trial Court is, therefore, binding not only on respondent No. 1 but also on respondent No.2. 16. Judgment and decree dated 29-6-2005 delivered by 10th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in regular Civil Appeal No. 463 of 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. Judgment and decree dated 30-7-1992 delivered by 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.' 554 of 1986 is hereby restored. 16. Judgment and decree dated 29-6-2005 delivered by 10th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur in regular Civil Appeal No. 463 of 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. Judgment and decree dated 30-7-1992 delivered by 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.' 554 of 1986 is hereby restored. Second appeal is thus allowed with costs throughout payable by respondents to the present appellant. The trial Court had given the present appellant/plaintiff time of two months to deposit the balance amount of sale consideration. The said period of two months shall be computed from today. 17. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Appeal allowed.