LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal by some of the defendants is directed against the decree passed by the trial Court in a suit for partition. There were two plaintiffs in the case, out of whom plaintiff No. 2 admittedly is the Benamidar for plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 claims to be the purchaser of 1/6th share in the suit properties from defendants Nos. 25 to 28. These defendants and the other defendants are the members of a family, their common ancestor being one Nanku Lal Rastogi. Nanku Lal had three sons, namely, Pana Lal Rastogi, Maruan Lal Rastogi and Dhanu Lal Rastogi. Dhanu Lal had two sons, namely, Bhola Nath who is defendant No. 1 and Kedar Nath (defendant No. 25). Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of defendant No. 1. Defendants Nos. 26 to 28 are the sons and grand-sons of defendant No. 25. Admittely, in 1936 th ere was a partition amongst the defendants by a registered document dated the 15th November, 1936, which has been marked as Ext. 6 in the case. Some of the properties were partitioned and some were left joint which were mainly shops in Biharsharif town, besides a garden. These properties were let out to the strangers on rent and under arrangem