( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Extra Assistant Judge Baroda dismissing civil appeal No. 49 of 1965 and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Baroda in regular civil suit No. 1379 of 1962.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under:-THE suit property bearing survey number 445/3 admeasuring 7238 1/2 sq. ft. situated in Baroda Sayaji Gunj ward belonged to one Pathan Sidukhan Pirkhan who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3. In part of this property admeasuring about 1568 sq. ft there were two houses with Orda Parshal kitchen etc. and were described as city survey numbers 45/12 and 45/13. Sidukhan died on 25-11-1950 leaving behind him his widow Bai Nurbibi and one minor daughter named Dhabu alias Memudabibi and one minor son named Kalu alias Imam khan. Under the Muhammadan Law the share of the plaintiff was 4 2/3 annas in a rupee and the share of the defendant was 9 1/3 annas in a rupee while Nurbibi had 2 annas share in a rupee. All of them thus held the property as tenants in common as the heirs of the said Sidukhan. It transpires that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had obtained a decree for Rs. 4600/with running interest at 4% on the principal amount of Rs. 4022/on 1-7-1952 against Bai Nurbibi and also against the minors wherein Nurbibi was appointed as guardianad-litem by the court. After this decree was obtained by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Nurbibi executed a sale deed Ex. 40 dated 11-2-1953 in their favour under which the suit property admeasuring 1968 sq. ft. containing a house was sold to them. Pursuant to the said transaction defendants Nos. 1 and 2 entered into possession of the suit property. Nurbibi died on 21-2-1959. Subsequently Bai Dhabu alias Memudabibi on attaining the majority filed a suit against defendant Nos. and 2 for a declaration that Nurbibi had no right to sell their share in the immovable property inherited by them from their father and that the said sale was not binding on them. The plaintiff therefore claimed partition of the suit property and for physical possession of her share. Defendant No. 3 Kalu alias Imamkhan was added in that suit who was represented by his guardian ad litem Ibrahim. During the pendency of the suit defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sold the property to one Gangaben and Madbuben and hence they were also joined as defendants Nos. 4 and 5. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by their written statement Ex. 12 raised several contentions. According to them the suit was beyond limitation. They contended that the decree in regular civil suit No. 306/61 was passed against both the minors and their mother for Rs. 4600/with costs and interest which came to Rs. 5400/and in consideration of the said amount and in consideration of Rs. 4599/which were paid in cash the sale transaction Ex. 40 was effected; that as the debt for which the decree was obtained was incurred by the deceased Sidukhan it was binding on the estate of the deceased and hence the sale transaction which was effected by Nurbibi for satisfying the said decretal amount was binding not only on Nurbibi but on the minors. They contended that Nurbibi was the administratrix of the property of the deceased and in such a capacity she had executed the sale deed to satisfy the debt of the deceased and hence it would be binding on the minors. In the alternative they contended that Nurbibi had a right to sell 1/8th interest in the estate of the deceased and the property covered by the sale deed being less than 1/8th of the value of the total property of the deceased the transaction was valid and was binding on the minors. It was contended that they had effected improvement to the tune of several thousands of rupees and therefore the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover possession of the property unless the said amount was paid. Defendant No. 3 accepted the averments made by the plaintiff by his wri