Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

The appellants were the plaintiffs before the trial court. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 were the minor children of defendant no.2 and were represented by their mother. It was contended that the plaintiffs and defendants were the members of a joint family. Defendant no.4 was the purchaser of the suit property. It was contended that the first defendant was the karta of the joint family and the second defendant was the father of the plaintiffs and the son of defendant no.1. It was alleged that the second defendant had neglected the family consisting of the plaintiffs and their mother and had sold away the suit property in favour of defendant no.4 which was purchased out of the joint family funds. It is further stated that the suit property was constructed by spending huge amounts of money and the sale in favour of defendant no.4 had come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only immediately prior to the filing of