1. In this appeal, the appellant died early in 1921. One Jetti Balarami Reddi has been added at his own instance as the legai representative of the appellant, and his Vakil is proposing to argue the appeal. He was added as a party without notice to the respondent. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent to the hearing of the appeal at the instance of Jetti Balarami Reddi on the ground that he is in no sense the legal representative of the deceased lady, the appellant, Mahalakshmamma. There cannot be any doubt that this objection is a valid one. His own claim is that he got some properties under a will left by the deceased Mahalakshmamma, and, as such, he was entitled to represent her in this appeal. He does not claim to be a reversioner to the lady. Mahalakshmamma herself claimed first under a. will left by her husband, but, subsequently, she repudiated that will and pleaded in this case that the will was not genuine. In a litigation which went up to the High Court in which she was one of the plaintiffs along with the defendant here, it was decided that the will was genuine: but, whether this decision is binding as between her and the defendant or not need not be decided for the purpose of this objection, for, assuming for a moment that the will is not genuine and that Mahalakshmamma was entitled to claim as she did in this case as the heir-at-law of her deceased husband, she would have no right whatever to dispose of any portion of her husband's property by will, and therefore, any claim of Jetti Balarama Reddi as a legatee under Mahalakshmamma's will comes to nothing. And, admittedly, as already stated, he was in no sense a reversioner, and therefore it is clear that he was in no sense entitled to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased lady.
2. Now, it is contended that, under the authority of Malla-pragadu v. Veeraraghava Rao 7 MLT 43 that having managed to come on record somehow as appellant's legal representative even if Balarami Reddi is not the proper legal representative, he is entitled to continue the appeal unless the proper legal representative comes on record himself and that it is not open to the defendant to object to the appeal being heard at the instance of Balarami Reddi. We do not think that the case cited lays down anything of the kind. The question there was really whether there was an abatement of the appeal because only wrong representatives had been added within the time allowed by law, the right representative only coming on the record after such time. It was held by the Court that the rule of limitation was satisfied by some legal representatives, even if they were wrong persons coming on record in time, and if the right legal representatives were afterwards brought on record, it did not matter. The report does not show the exact state of affairs in the case, but we have sent for the original records from the office, and they show that, by the time the appeal was argued, the right legal representative was on record, and it was at her instance that the appeal was heard and not at the instance of the wrong legal representatives. This case is therefore no authority for saying that any person who manages to bring himself on record as a legal representative without notice to the other party can insist upon continuing as such, even after Objection is taken to him at the time of the hearing. We do not think that any such proposition can possibly be supported.
3. The result is that Balarami Reddi, not being in any sense-the legal representative of the deceased lady, his name must be struck off the record. It follows then that at present no legal representative of the deceased lady has come on the record; As she died more than a year ago, and the period allowed for bringing in the legal representative is long past the appeal must be treated as having abated.
4. The costs of the appeal will come out of the estate of the deceased Mahalakshmamma.