K.Ahmad, J.

1. Both these appeals arise from the same judgment and decree, dated 24-2-1940, given by Mr. Bhagwan Prasad, Subordinate Judge, 1st Court Monghyr, First Appeal No. 208 of 1949 is by the defendants and is directed against that part of the decree which grants relief to the plaintiff as to his prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession while the other appeal, First Appeal No. 191 of 1949, is by the plaintiff and is directed against that part of the decree whereby the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed his claim for mesne profits.

2. Originally there were two plaintiffs. The second plaintiff was the receiver of Raj Banaili estate. Subsequently on an application made by Raj, he was permitted to withdraw and the suit was allowed to proceed on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 alone; while on the other side there have been all long two sets of defendants -- defendants first party, a joint Mitakshara family represented by defendant No. 1 as their karta and manager and the defendant second party one Amarendra Bhusari Banerji, who, as alleged by the defendants first party and admitted by him, is only their farzidar. Thus, the controversy in this case is mainl