JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J.:—This appeal is by certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court against its judgment dated 18th May, 1967 in appeal No. 14 of 1957, upholding and affirming the judgment and decree dated 13-9-1956 in suit No. 1607 of 1938. The appellants in this appeal are defendants 12 and 13 in the suit. The suit was filed by Beharilal and his mother Ginni praying amongst other reliefs for a declaration that the respondent is entitled to 1/8th share in the assets and properties belonging to the joint family, for setting aside all conveyances and transfers and for a declaration that plaintiff is entitled to separate properties and funds of Laloolal Murarka, the father of the plaintiff and husband of second plaintiff. After written statements were filed, the plaint was amended on 6-7-1939 whereby an alternative claim for 1/8th share of the Companys property was made if it was held that there was no joint family but only a company.

2. One Ram Niranjandas Murarka died on 29th October, 1930 leaving his widow Janki Devi, the 10th defendant and 8 sons-Hiralal Murarka defendant No. 1, Nandlal Murarka since deceased, Radhelal Murarka defendant No. 3, Misri Lal Murarka defendant No. 5, Chinni Lal Murarka defendant No. 7, Chotelal Murarka defendant No. 8, Kisenlal Murarka defendant No, 9, and vast moveable and immoveable properties and several business assets situate within and outside the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, Motilal Murarka died without leaving any issue. Amongst 8 sons in this appeal, we are concerned with the families of 3 sons. Laloolals wife Ginni is the second plaintiff and their son is Beharilal, the first plaintiff. Radheylals son is Makhanlal and Makhanlals son is Murarilal respondent 12 in this appeal. Murarilals widow is Bimla and their son is Rahul. Bimla and Rahul were brought on record as legal representatives of Murarilal after his death pending appeal in this Court and they are contesting the present appeal. Chinnilals son is Ratanlal and he is respondent 20 who is also contesting this appeal. The other sons and their descendants contested the plaintiffs plea that they were members of a joint family. Their case was that family was divided and the impugned alienations in favour of D.12 and D.13 were valid. They have stuck to this plea throughout and as they are in fact supporting the appellants, it is unnecessary to consider their case separately. The suit was decreed and an appeal was preferred by defendants 12 and 13. Pending appeal the plaintiffs changed their front and started supporting the present appellants, defendants 12 and 13, stating that the impugned alienations were binding on them. But Bimla and Rahul who were brought on record pending the appeal in this Court are questioning the validity of the impugned transaction though Murarilal opposed the plaintiffs claim during the suit and the appeal. Though Chinnilal in his written statement supported the case of the present appellants that the impugned transactions were valid, Chinnilals son Ratanlal, who attained majority in 1943, challenged the validity of the impugned transactions 3 years after attaining majority. The position therefore is that the plaintiffs who belonged to Laloolals group (the widow and son of one of the sons of Laloolal) who were the only persons that questioned the alienations at the time of the suit later on supported the case of the present appellants, while the descendants of two sons Radheylal and Chinnilal though they originally affirmed the impugned transactions are questioning the validity of transactions and contesting the appeal before us.

3. The present litigation is about 39 years old. The suit was filed on 22-8-1938. The decree was passed by the trial Court on 13-9-1956 and the appellate decree is dated 18-5-1967. It has now come up before us after 10 years since the passing of the decree by the appellate court in Calcutta. The trial went on for 63 days.

4. The main contention that was raised in the appe