JUDGMENT : Presently, the point for consideration is whether appeal by or on behalf of dead person is competent ? 2. For deciding this question, it is sufficient to mention that plaintiffs Bheru (since deceased) and Ramsingh filed a suit challenging the show-cause notice issued by Tehsildar Badnavar under Section 248, M.P. Land Revenue Code and sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction. 3. Despite opposition, the suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Respondents, therefore, carried the matter in First Appeal which was allowed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 23-11-2011 and the suit was dismissed. 4. It is not disputed that Bheru died on 16-6-2011 and in the Court below the Counsel appearing for plaintiffs did not disclose this fact and the appeal was allowed as stated above. 5. This appeal has been filed by the Legal Representatives of deceased Bheru and co-plaintiff Ramsingh. There is no application seeking substitution of Legal Representatives. Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that since the judgment was pronounced against a dead person, therefore, it is a nullity and can be challenged in this appeal by his Legal Representatives. Government Advocate has opposed the submission and submitted that appeal is liable to be dismissed being incompetent. 6. It is trite law that a judgment against a dead person is nullity. It is equally well settled that a suit or appeal by or behalf of a dead person is also a nullity and cannot proceed without substitution of Legal Representative. In the facts of the case in hand, provisions of Order XX Rule 10-A, Code of Civil Procedure would not come to rescue of Legal Representatives and without making a declaration, it is not open for them to say that judgme.nl of the Court below is a nullity or non-est. Appellants cannot take advantage of their own omission. Proposed Legal Representatives on their own cannot file appeal in the name of dead person. Even otherwise, this point is no longer res Integra in view of the earlier decision of the Nagpur High Court in Hazarimal Bholaram Vs. Shriramchandraswami Dewasthan, reported in AIR 1934 Nagpur 55. In view of said decision, which has the binding force, we have no hesitation to hold that this appeal by Legal Representative of deceased plaintiff-Bheru is incompetent and as such is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Shriramchandraswami Dewasthan, reported in AIR 1934 Nagpur 55. In view of said decision, which has the binding force, we have no hesitation to hold that this appeal by Legal Representative of deceased plaintiff-Bheru is incompetent and as such is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. In view of this, names of Tejubai; Ankush and Hitesh be struck-off from the cause title. Necessary corrections in the record be carried out within a week. The effect of this order shall be considered at the time of admission of appeal qua Ramsingh. 7. Office is directed to list the matter for consideration and order on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A. No. 2029/12).