( 1 ) THIS application to condone delay in filing the appeal under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act arises from a suit filed by the appellant against the respondents in the Court of the Third Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedabad on 19th March 1952. The appellant claimed relief in respect of three categories of properties. The first category consisted of properties which according to the appellant belonged to his father Jesingbhai at the time of his death and were bequeathed by Jesingbhai to the appellant and his brother Jagabhai-being the only two sons of Jesingbhai-by a will. These properties alleged the appellant came into the hands of Jagabhai on the death of Jesingbhai and the appellant was entitled to one-half share in these properties. The second category comprised certain other properties which were inherited by the appellant and Jagabhai from their grandmother Bai Mena in equal shares and which on the death of Jesingbhai again came into the hands of Jagabhai on the allegation of the appellant. The appellant contended in relation to the aforesaid properties that an oral partition which had taken place between the appellant and Jagabhai was fraudulent and not binding on the appellant and that notwithstanding such partition the appellant was entitled to claim his one-half share in such properties. The appellant therefore claimed in prayer (a) of the plaint that the oral partition was not valid and binding on the appellant and that all the properties belonging to Jesingbhai at the time of his death as also all properties belonging to Bai Mena which were received by Jagabhai on the death of Jesingbhai should be accounted for by the respondents respondent No. 1 being the widow and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 being the sons of Jagabhai since deceased and that the appellants one half share in these properties should be ascertained declared and duly paid over to the appellant. T he appellant also claimed in the alternative that if it was held that the properties which belonged to Jesingbhai at the time of his death were joint family properties and that he had no right to make a will in respect of the same these properties on the death of Jesingbhai belonged to the appellant and Jagabhai as joint family properties and that Jagabhai having received these properties on the death of Jesingbhai Jagabhai and after his death the respondents were liable to account for these properties and these properties should therefore be ascertained and declared and after excluding such of them as were already partitioned the rest should be divided and the appellants half share should be awarded to him. The appellant also contended that at the time of the death of Jesingbhai there were certain shares lying with Jesingbhai which belonged to the appellant as his separate property and that on the death of Jesingbhai these shares were received by Jagabhai and that Jagabhai and after his death the respondents were in the position of trustees in respect of these shares and were liable to account for the same. The appellant accordingly claimed in prayer (b) of the plaint that whatever amount was ascertained as due and payable by the respondents to the appellant at the foot of the accounts in respect of these shares should be paid and these shares together with any accretions which might have been received and arty other shares into which they might have been converted should be handed over to the appellant. These shares constituted the third category of properties claimed by the appellant The appellant valued prayers (a) and (b) of the plaint at Rs. 200/each for the purpose of court-fees and paid court-fees on the total valuation of Rs. 400. 00. So far as the valuation of the subject matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and advocates fees was concerned the appellant in the original draft of the plaint put the valuation at Rs. 400/but subsequently before filing the plaint altered it to Rs. 75 0 The respondents resisted the s