( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the heirs of the original plaintiff of the Special Civil Suit no. 67 of 1970 dismissed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) Surat. The original plaintiff had died on 24-3-73 in the suit filed on 9-5-70. So the suit was prosecuted by the present appellants who are the heirs of the original plaintiff Saiyed Abudlraheman. The defendants nos. 1 2 and 3 of the suit being legal representations of one Sadruddin were impleaded as the main defendants nos. 4 to 24 were impleaded because they were in possession of various parcels of the suit properties.

( 2 ) IN order to understand a good deal of controversy raised before us and also before the learned trial Judge on a number of points the nature of the plaintiffs suit deserves to be notice at the outset. The plaint ex. 1 before the learned trial Judge showed than it was as if a simple Suit for partition of some joint properties joint between the plaintiff On one him and the defendants nos. 1 to 3 on the other and the defendants nos. 4 to 24 were impleaded only on he allegation in paragraph 7 of the plaint that the defendants nos. 1 to 3 had sold away some of the lands out of the suit lands to them he collusion with one another but all these transactions of transfer were fraudulent and effected behind the back of the plaintiff. It was alleged that these fraudulent nos. 4 24 had purchased the different parts of these properties with the full knowledge of the plaintiffs right thereto. The plaintiff in the that did not develop how he had got the title to the suit land. but proceeded on the assumption that the properties were joint between him and the predecessor the of the defendants nos. 1 to 3 i. e. Sadruddin.

( 3 ) THE suit was hotly contested by the defendants nos. 20 and 21 by filing the written statement ex. 50; by the defendant nos. 10 to 13 by filing the written statement ex. 73; by the defendant no. 16 by filing the written statement ex. 81 try the defendants nos. 1 to 3 by filing the written statement ex. 89 and by the defendant no. 22 by filing the written statement ex. 229.

( 4 ) AS said above the plaintiff did not trace his title to the suit properties. The defendants nos. 1 to 3 and others. however alleged that the properties were the exclusive properties of the defendants nos. 1 to 3 and plots nos. 4 to 9 and other defendants were bona fide purchasers. It was also alleged that the defendants nos. 4 to 9 were also owners of certain parcels of the property in their own rights. These simple unsophisticated pleadings however got augmented and enlarged when the matter went to trial and the evidence on the record of course pertaining to the various issues raised by the learned trial Judge made many things clear. which are required to be stated in details at this stage. The suit properties. the evidence clearly bears out belonged to one Hamirbibi. Said Hamirbibi had mortgaged the suit properties as back as in the year 1878 in favour of one Patel Chunilal. Said Hamirbibi died many years ago leaving behind her. her son Shaikh Maju her second son Shaikh Vazeer and her daughter Fatimabibi. Shaikh Maju had died in the year 1875 Shaikh Vazeer had expired in 1880 and Fatimabibi had died in the year 1910. Shaikh Vazeer had no heirs and we treat that branch as extinct. Shaikh Maju who had died he the year 1875 had two sons Kamruddins and Nur Mohmad. Nur Mohmads branch also has become extinct. Kamruddins was Sadruddin the predecessor-in-title of the defendants nos. 1 to 3. Fatimabibi had died in the fear 1910 A D. and she had a daughter named Mariyam. Said Mariyam had one daughter and that Mariyams daughters son is Saiyed Abdul Raheman. the original plaintiff. Now that mortgagee Patel Chunilas son Motibhai had sold his mortgagees rights to Vora Alibhai Abulbhai the predecessor-in-title of the defendants nos. 4 to 9. The document is ex. 233 and it is dated 5-7-1909 and so there is no getting away from the fact that only the mortgagees rights we