JUDGMENT :

Bhagwati Prasad, J.

By this common judgment we are deciding the appeals arising out of the decision rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kachchh-Bhuj on 18.9.1999. By the aforesaid judgment, learned Civil Judge has decided Special Civil Suit No. 68 of 1980, Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 1995 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 1993. For the purpose of deciding the controversy, first we are delineating the facts as contained in Special Civil Suit No. 68 of 1980. The other two matters being cognate and are arising out of the same controversy are being dealt with subsequently. In that view of the matter, the facts of Special Civil Suit No. 68 of 1980 are the foundation of our judgment as the same has been the basic foundation of the judgment of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kachchh at Bhuj.

2. The plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 68 of 1980 is the appellant before us in this appeal. The plaintiff appellant claimed in his Suit that he is son of defendant No. 1 and 2, both defendants since deceased. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the said Suit were described as younger brothers of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were grandsons of defendant No. 1. Defendant Nos. 12 and 13 are sisters of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 9 to 11 were the trustees of Maharao Shri Madansinhji Charitable Trust. Defendant Nos. 14 and 15 were purchasers of some property out of the properties of the subject matter of the Suit. Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 who dealt with the property.

3.1 The plaintiff claimed that prior to February, 1948, the erstwhile State of Kachchh was ruled by His Highness Maharao Vijayrajji, father of defendant No. 1. The then Maharao Vijayrajji expired in or about February, 1948. The said Maharao Vijayrajji, at the time of his death or prior to that, was Karta of the family which has been referred as joint family by the plaintiff. This family constituted Maharao Vijayrajji as Karta, his wife Maharani Padmakunvarba, his eldest son Yuvaraj Madansinhji who is defendant No. 1 in the Suit, Yuvarani Rajendrakumariba who is wife of Madansinhji and defendant No. 2 in the Suit and the plaintiff as the eldest son of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who are the other sons of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Nandkunvarba and Brijkunvarba are daughters of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was contended by the plaintiff that the said joint family was governed by Mitakshara School of law and the family held various immovable and movable properties within and outside the State of Kachchh.

3.2 The plaintiff contended in his Suit that on the demise of Maharao Vijayrajji in or about February, 1948, defendant No. 1, being the eldest son of the deceased, became Karta of the joint family. He gained control over various movable and immovable properties belonging to the joint family as Karta. According to the plaintiff, at the time of filing of the Suit, his branch and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 constituted the joint family. According to the plaintiff, the other members have ceased to be the members of the joint family for the circumstances mentioned in the Suit.

3.3 It is the case set up by the plaintiff that on the demise of Maharao Vijayrajji, defendant No. 1 became Ruler and Maharao of Kachchh. In that capacity defendant No. 1 on 4.5.1948 ceded to the dominion Government full and exclusive jurisdiction and powers in relation to the governance of the State of Kachchh. It was agreed to transfer the administration of the State to the dominion Government on 1.6.1948. An instrument of ceding was made between the Governor General of India and defendant No. 1 on 4.5.1948.

3.4 By the aforesaid instrument there was a distinction made by the parties to the properties belonging to the State of Kachchh and the properties of the Ruler, that is to say, the properties other than those belonging to the State of Kachchh. By Clause (4) of the instrument, it was declared that defendant No. 1 was entitled to the ownership, use an