- (1.) This second appeal is at the instance of two married daughters of the appellant and is directed against Order No. 16 dated 30th April, 2010 passed by the learned First Appellate Court below holding that the appeal preferred by the appellant had abated as right to sue did not survive upon the present appellant before us.
(2.) There is no dispute that the father of the present appellants was the tenant in respect of the suit property against whom suit for eviction was filed. During the pendency of the suit the father of the present appellants died and on his death only his widow namely, the mother of the present appellants was substituted although the mother took the point that two married daughters should also be substituted. Ultimately, the suit was decreed against the mother of the present appellants. Being dissatisfied, the mother of the appellants preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court below and during the pendency of the appeal, the mother of the appellants died and on her death, the present appellants came up with an application for substitution for being substituted in place of their mother.
(3.) By the order impugned herein, the learned First Appellate Court below has rejected such application and at the same time held that right to sue did not survive on the death of the mother of the appellants upon the appellants. Being dissatisfied, the appellants have come up with the present second appeal.;