MAHAPATRA, J.:- These two appeals by two different sets of defendants arise out of the same judgment in a suit in which the plaintiffs, as nearest reversionary heirs of one Nathuni Singh, asked for declaration that twelve alienations of immoveable properties effected by Nathuni Singhs widow, Mst. Jagabati (defendant No.54), in favour of defendants 2, 5, 9, father of defendants 9 and 10, defendants 29, 38 and 53 and a deed of endowment in favour of Sri Thakur Ram Janki (defendant No.21) through shebait, Bishnu Singh, were not for legal necessity and as such were not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants can be divided for purpose of convenience into two groups - one consisting of defendants 1 to 20 who, it was stated before us, belong to one joint Hindu family of which defendant No.1 was the karta and the other group consisting of defendants 21 to 52.

First Appeal 25 of 1956 has been filed by the latter group (defendants 21 to 52). The other appeal namely, F.A.30 of 1956 has been filed by defendants 1, 2 and 5 to 10. The defence of all these defendants were three-fold:

(i) The plaintiffs are not the nearest reversionary heirs of Nathuni Singh who died leaving behind his w