Shambhu Prasad Singh, J.

1. Questions arising for decision in these two appeals being common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The res-pondents in the two appeals are also common; Nos. 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs and Nos. 6 and 7 are two of the defendants, adopted son and widow of Charmanlal Khedia. The appellants in two appeals are not commer. They are other defend-ants of the two suits and claimed title to teh properties in dispute on the basis of purchases from respondent No. 6. Title Suit No 10 of 1957 was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Chaibassa. Second Appeal No. 659 of 1963 arises out of this suit The other suit was originally filed before the Munsif at Chaibassa, but, It appears subsequently this also came before the Subordinate Judge at Chaibassa and was numbered as Title Suit No. 7 of 1959 of that Court Second Appeal No. 600 of 1963 arises out of this suit.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff- respondents in both the suits was that the properties in dispute as described in schedule A to the plaint belonged to Saligram (father of Chaman Lal Khedia) and others and stood recorded in their names in the re