Das, J.

1. These two appeals have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment. The plaintiffs are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 1112 of 1948, while in Second Appeal No. 1677 of 1949 defendant 1 is the appellant. Though the appeals arise out of two different suits, the facts are more or less the same. These facts so far as they are relevant for the determination of the two appeals are shortly stated below.

2. The plaintiffs were Chowdhury Sah, his son and grand-sons--all members of a joint Hindu family. Chowdhury Sah is now dead and the appeal is prosecuted by his son and grand-sons, For the sake of convenience, I shall call them the plaintiffs. One Anant Lal Sah was the defendant second party. His father was Soukhichand Sah. The plaintiffs and Soukhichand Sah were joint till 1936 in which year there was a separation and the plaintiffs formed one joint family of which Chowdhury Sah was the Karta. Soukhichand Sah, and after his death his son Anant Lal Sah, became the karta of the other branch of the family represented by Soukhichand Sah, One Chakradhar Prasad and his sons formed a third joint Hindu family of which Chakradhar Prasad was the karta. They were