A.K.Prasad, J.

1. These Letters Patent Appeals are from the decision of learned single Judge dated 3rd May 1990 rendered in F.A. No. 132 of 1985(R) along with F.A. No. 133 of 1985(R). The plaintiff Mosharraf Ali [respondent no. 1 in L.P.A. No. 68/90(R)] brought Partition Suit no. 244 of 1982, while plaintiff Md. Isha- que brought Partition Suit no. 244 of 1983 [who is respondent no. 1 in L.P.A. No. 75/90(R)] which were decreed by the Special Sub-Judge, Ranchi for partition of their 1/12th share, each, in the suit property described in Schedule A to the plaint by common judgment dated 28.8.85 and the preliminary decree(s) drawn up thereunder. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the partition suits, Abdul Manan @ Abdul Main, a defendant in the suit preferred F.A. Nos. 132 and 133 of 1985(R) which were dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The suit property comprises an area of 7 karies in Municipal plot no. 769, one kary of municipal plot no. 765 and 53 karies of Municipal plot no. 770 situated at village Konkarsiram, in Ward no. 5 of Ranchi Municipality, within P.S. Lower Bazar.

3. The facts of the case of the parties are set out in detail in the judgment of the trial court as well as the judgment of the learned single Judge. So it is suffice to state the facts essential for the decision of the instant appeals.

4. Shorn of details, the case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property, fully described in Schedule A to the plaint, belonged to Mostt. Ratni who conveyed it in the year 1939 under a deed of gift to Hazi Latif @ Seikh Bandhan who became its owner and under a registered deed of sale dated 11.8.1975 (Ext. C/2) he transferred his right, title and interest in the schedule A property to defendant nos. 2 to 7. Defendant nos. 2 to 6 are full brothers, whereas defendant no. 7 Md. Rashid is stranger to the family. The plaintiff on representation made by Md. Rashid, defendant no. 7, that there had been a partition interse amongst defendant nos. 2 to 7 transferred his share in suit property described in Schedule B to the plaint under a joint registered deed of sale dated 1.12.1981 (Ext. 1). The plaintiffs brought the suits for partition of their half share, each, in Schedule B property and alternatively for partition of their 1/12 share each in schedule A property. According to them, defendant no. 7, their vendor, had 1/6th share in Schedule A property on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.8.1975 standing in the names of defendant nos. 2 to 7.

5. The main case of defendant no. 2 Abdul Manan (the appellant herein), as made out in his written statement, is as under :

The Schedule A property was in fact acquired by him for Seikh Bandhan under registered deed of sale dated 11.8.1975 (Ext. C/2) and he had paid entire consideration amount and defendant nos. 3 to 7, whose names occurred in the sale deed, are his benamidars and that he is the true owner of the suit property. The suit property, in fact, belonged to Aklu Main who had purchased 11 karies in Municipal survey plot no. 765 from Koka Mochi in the name of Mostt. Ratni under a registered sale deed in 1915 and he had also acquired Municipal plot nos. 769 and 770. In fact Seikh Bandhan had no right, title and interest with respect to the suit property. The alleged deed of gift, if any, executed by Mostt. Ratni in favour of Bandhan was a sham transaction. Since Seikh Bandhan represented himself as an absolute owner of the Schedule A property defendant no. 2 appellant had purchased the said property by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 11.8.1975 with defendant nos. 3 -to 7 as name lenders for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-.

Two kathas and eight chatak of Municipal survey plot no. 770 was gifted by Aklu Mian to his grand-son Seikh Sharif under registered deed of gift dated 15.6.1918 and came in possession thereof which was ultimately purchased by defendant no. 2- appellant from Md. Sharif under registered