SURTI J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Navsari, in Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 1968. By the aforesaid decree, the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Navsari, directed inter alia that the appellant-plaintiff's suit for a declaration pertaining to sales in favour of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 be dismissed. He, however, declared that the mortgage in favour of the respondent No. 7 is not binding to the appellant-plaintiff and respondent No. 2. The learned Civil Judge also held that the appellant-plaintiff had half share in the family properties except those properties alienated in favour of respondents Nos. 5 and 6. He also directed that suitable arrangements to be made for the maintenance and marriage expenses of respondent No. 3. He appointed the Commissioner to effect the partition and gave certain directions for taking accounts and for submitting his report. The operative portion of the judgment of the trial Court in this behalf is as follows :-

"1. The suit of plaintiff for a declaration to sales in favour of defendants Nos. 5 and 6 is dismissed.

2. The mortgage in favour of defendant No. 7 is hereby declared not binding to the share of plaintiff and defendant No. 2.

3. The plaintiff has 1/3rd share in the family properties except those alienated to defendants Nos. 5 and 6.

4. It is hereby ordered that the partition of the family properties shall be effected by Shri G.V. Patel, Pleader, who is appointed a Commissioner to effect the partition. The Commissioner shall propose what suitable arrangement should be made for the maintenance and marriage of defendant No. 3. In doing so, he will take into consideration the observations in course of this judgment.

5. Defendant No. 1 shall submit before the Commissioner the accounts of income and expenses etc. pertaining to the joint family properties from 1952. The Commissioner shall submit his report pertaining to liabilities and assets etc. for consideration for the final decree. The Commissioner shall take possession of the properties and shall submit his proposal for interim arrangement for maintenance of plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

6. Plaintiff shall deposit Rs. 150 (Rs. One hundred and fifty only) in the first instance towards expenses which the Commissioner may incur.

7. Considering the fact and circumstances revealed parties shall bear their own costs be paid un by him.

8. A preliminary decree shall be drawn up accordingly."

2. In the appeal before us the only grievance of the appellant-plaintiff is that the learned trial Judge was in error in not granting the declaration pertaining to sales in favour of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (original defendants Nos. 5 and 6).

3. Now in order to understand the grievance of the appellant-plaintiff a few fact relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be stated in brief.

4. The suit was filed on behalf of the minor plaintiff by his maternal uncle Gajanand Vishwanath Junnarkar as next friend of the minor. In the suit the father the mother and the sisters of the plaintiff are impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are the alienees of the properties belonging to "the Hindu Undivided Family" (hereinafter referred to as "H. U. F.") formed of the plaintiff and respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

5. In substance it was the case of the plaintiff that his grandfather Vishnu Anna Shastri became the owner of properties mentioned in pare, 4 of the plaint by virtue of the partition deed dated 27th January, 1887 between his grandfather Vishnu Anna Shastri and his brother Vasudev Anna Shastri. It was the case of the plaintiff that the said properties belonged to the H. U. F. It was also the case of the plaintiff that the properties mentioned at Items Nos. 2 and 3 in paragraph 4 of the plaint were transferred in favour of defendant No. 5 evidenced by a bogus document dated 17th October, 1958 Ex. 57 by one Maganlal Hargovandas Soni. It was alleged tha