P.N.SHINGHAL, J. - (1.) AS this second appeal by some of the plaintiffs against the appellate judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Sirohi, dated August 22, 1961, must fail on a preliminary objection, it will be sufficient to state the important facts.
(2.) THE suit house is situated in village Mundara, in the former 'Jagir' of Thakur Mod Singh. Plaintiffs Vijai Raj, his sons, brother and sister instituted the present suit for its possession and recovery of mesne profits on the ground that Thakur Mod Singh, father of Pratap Singh (defendant No. 9) had sold it on Bhadwa bad 6, Section 1996 (August 24, 1940) for Rs. 291/ - and executed a 'patta' in favour of plaintiff Vijai Raj and his sons Hastimal, Pakhraj and Dan mal as well as Vijai Raj's father Himatmal. Plaintiff Vijai Raj was the Kamdar of the Thikana of Thakur Mod Singh, and the ''patta' in question is said to have been written in his 'bahi'. The suit house, according to the plaintiffs belonged to Jagirdar who had allowed Bhera (defendant No. 1) and his sons Chena (defendant No. 2) and Moti (defendant No. 3) to live in it as tenants, for which they executed a 'Kabuhyat' in favour of Jagirdar on Aug. 25, 1940. The plaintiffs alleged that Bhera, Chena and Moti were members of a joint Hindu family and that Behra, in his capacity as Karta, sold the suit house to Var -dhi Chand (defendant No. 4) &: his sons on September 27, 1955. The vendees took possession of the and house as they did not vacate it inspite of notice, the plaintiffs instituted their suit on August 5, 1959, for possession and mesne, profits as aforesaid. Four written statements were filed on behalf of the defendants. A joint written statement was filed by defendants Bhera, Chena and Moti stating that the suit house was built by Bhera's father Uma, on land which was given by the Thikana on a kachha patta, and was in their possession all through so that they had a right to sell it to defendant Vardhi Chand and his sons. They denied the sale alleged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' contention that Bhera and his sons Chena and Moti were Members of a joint Hindu family and Bhera was its Kirta, was also denied. Several other pleas were taken, bat it is not necessary to refer to them for purposes of the present controversy.
(3.) VARDHI Ghand, defendant No. 5, supported the written statement of defendants Bhera. Chena and Moti and traversed the claim of the plaintiffs. A separate written statement was filed by Vardhi Ghand's minor sons supporting the sale in Vardhi Ghand's favour Partap Singh, defendant No. 9, was impleaded as the son of Thakur Mod Singh and he supported the plaintiffs' claim.;