1. This appeal of the plaintiff is directed against the dismissal of his suit by the trial Court.

2. The dispute now relates to the immovable property left by one Mahadeo as described in Schedules A to C of the plaint. No dispute was raised before us in respect of the movable property shown in Sch. D of the plaint. The contest chiefly lies between the plaintiff, the son of the deceased Mahadeos daughter Anchi on the one hand, who claims to be the next reversioner on the death of all the daughters of Mahadeo, and the second defendant Jainarayan on the other, who claims the property under the oral will of Mahadeo and also as his adopted son. The claim of Jainarayan is supported by the 14th defendant Kukhminibai who is the daughter of Mahadeos deceased daughter Narbada, and also by the first defendant Damodhar, who is the son of Mahadeos another deceased daughter Saraswati. Defendants Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 are only the tenants of the portion of the suit properties. They plead that they have taken this portion from the second defendant and claim no interest in the suit property. They have also stated that they are willing to deliver possession of the portion in their respective possession to the person held entitled thereto. Defendants 3 and 4 are transferees of the second defendant Jainarayan and they support Jainarayans case. They also support the sale in their favour on the ground of legal necessity. Defendant No. 10 was discharged during the pendency of the suit. It is not clear from the plaint why defendants 8 and 13 were joined as parties to this suit. No contest, however, is raised on their behalf before us.

3. The following genealogical tree will be helpful in appreciating the dispute raised in the case.

It is common ground that Mahadeo was separate in mess and estate from his brothers and the property in dispute is his separate property. Mahadeo died on the night of 13-10-30, leaving behind three daughters, Narbada, Saraswati and Anchi, and the suit property. All the three daughters were married prior to his death and had died before 15-8-1945 when the suit was instituted. The family of Mahadeo belongs to the sect known as Vaishnao Bisa Agarwal.

4. The plaintiffs case was that the family of Mahadeo belonged to Jaipur in Rajputana (Marwar) and has migrated from there to Berar and is thus governed by Benares School of Hindu Law. On Mahadeos death, his daughters succeeded to his property but had only a limited interest therein. Out of these daughters Narbada died last and on her death, the plaintiff and the first defendant Damodhar became the full owners of the property left behind by Mahadeo, owning equal shares therein. The plaintiff, therefore, claims separation and possession of his half share in the suit property. He also claims accounts from the second defendant of the income of the suit property which is in his possession, Plaintiff also denies the alleged oral will of Mahadeo and the adoption of the second defendant by Mahadeo under which he claims to be in possession of the property. Plaintiff also challenges the deed dated 28-10-1930 executed by the second defendant Jainarayan and the daughters of Mahadeo under which separate items of Mahadeos property have been allotted to each of the three daughters of Mahadeo and to Jainarayan. The plaintiff pleads that the contents of the document are pure inventions. According to him, the document is merely a device to divide the property amongst the second defendant and the three daughters of the deceased Mahadeo. Also according to him the document was not executed by the daughters of their free will and that they were merely tools in the hands of designing persons including the second defendant. In the alternative, the plaintiff pleads that the document was executed by the daughters in ignorance of their lawful rights. On these grounds the plaintiff pleads that the document is not binding on him. It is also pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff that the adoption, if an