Tarkeshwar Nath, J.

1. This appeal by defendants 1 to 10 (defendants 1st party) arises out of a suit for a declaration that the mortgage bonds dated 18-9-1925, 2-11-1928 and 4-1-1929 were forged, fraudulent, fictitious, without valid necessity and consideration and were not genuine and binding against the plaintiffs and the debts alleged to have been incurred were illegal and immoral. The two plaintiffs further wanted a declaration that the preliminary and the final decrees in Mortgage Suit No. 72 of 1938 obtained on the basis of those bonds were illegal and invalid and the auction sale dated 8-9-1942 and the delivery of possession dated 10-1-1943 in Mortgage Execution Case No. 203 of 1941 were altogether null and void and ineffective and they were not at all binding on the plaintiffs. They wanted a further declaration that all the processes of the rent suit and the execution case were suppressed and the possession of defendants 1st and 2nd parties in respect of the lands described in Schedule 1 of the plaint were illegal. The plaintiffs further made a prayer for a decree for recovery of possession in respect of those properties described in Schedule 1 of the plaint and a decree for confirmation of possession in respect of the properties described in Schedule 2 of the plaint. There was still a further prayer for mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 603 besides the mesne profits pendente lite and future.

2. According to the genealogical table given in the plaint, one Badri Singh had two sons Rambhagat Singh and Sahdeo Singh (defendant 3rd party). Rambhagat Singh had two sons Rameshwar Singh and Kishore Singh. Mt. Ramnagina Kuer (plaintiff No. 2) is the widow of Rarneshwar Singh, whereas Rampunit Singh (Plaintiff No. 1) is the son of Kishore Singh. Plaintiff No. 1 was a minor and he was represented in the suit by his mother Mt. Ramjati Kuail Sahdeo Singh was impleaded as defendant No. 15 but after his death his heir was substituted while the suit was pending in the trial Court. The case of these two plaintiffs was that Rameshwar Singh and Kishore Singh were separate in mess and business from Sahdeo Singh. Kishore Singh and Rameshwar Singh had more than sufficient income from the properties and they had no necessity to take any loan. Defendants 11 and 14 (defendants 2nd party) filed Mortgage Suit No. 72 of 1938 in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Darbhanga against the plaintiffs, defendant 3rd party and other co-sharers on the basis of those three bonds, the first one alleged to have been executed by all the three, viz., Sahdeo Singh, Kishore Singh and Rameshwar Singh and the other two executed by Rameshwar Singh and Kishore Singh only and defendants 2nd party obtained a fraudulent ex parte decree on 13-7-1939 by suppressing the processes. Thereafter defendants, 2nd party in collusion and concert with the defendants 1st party got the said fraudulent ex parte decree made final by taking illegal steps and they filed Execution case No. 203 of 1941. The processes of the execution case also were suppressed and the properties described in Schedule 1 were sold on 8-9-1942 and purchased by the defendants 2nd party themselves but in the names of defendants 1st party who were their close relations. Plaintiff No. 1 was a minor and was under the guardianship of his mother Mt. Ramjati Kueri and plaintiff No. 2 was a purdanashin lady. Taking advantage of this, defendants 1st and 2nd parties took all the steps illegally and the plaintiffs came to know of those proceedings regarding auction sale and delivery of possession on 15-12-1942 through one Rambadan Thakur and thereafter they filed Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1953 but it was dismissed for default and an application to restore that case also was rejected summarily. The mortgage bonds in question were fraudulent and without consideration and the debts, if any, were incurred for immoral purposes and were entirely abyavaharik. In fact the father and grand-father of plaintiff No. 1 di