Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The first defendant is held to be acting in a fiduciary capacity, holding the property not for her own benefit alone but for the benefit of all the heirs of the deceased, including the plaintiffs (!) (!) .

2. The term "nominee" is defined as a person designated to act for another, implying that the first defendant's role was to receive the property on behalf of the heirs, rather than as an absolute owner (!) (!) .

3. The sale deed executed in favor of the first defendant was based on her role as a nominee and trustee, and she did not acquire absolute ownership rights over the property (!) (!) .

4. The property was allotted to the deceased in a manner that did not confer absolute ownership during his lifetime, and the transfer in her name was in her fiduciary capacity, not as a sole owner (!) (!) .

5. The first defendant's claim to exclusive ownership based on her being the nominee and executing a settlement deed in her favor is not sustainable, as she was holding the property in trust for the heirs (!) (!) .

6. The suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition is maintainable, as they are co-sharers with a rightful claim to their respective shares, and the limitation period for such a suit has not expired (!) (!) .

7. The plea that the suit is barred by limitation due to the long passage of time (more than 24 years) is not convincing, given that the plaintiffs issued a legal notice and the property remained in joint possession (!) (!) .

8. The first defendant's settlement deed in favor of other defendants does not extinguish the plaintiffs' rights, as it was executed without absolute ownership rights and is therefore invalid (!) (!) .

9. The legal character of the property and the fiduciary relationship of the first defendant with the heirs support the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to their share in the property (!) (!) .

10. The appeal filed by the first defendant and other defendants is dismissed, and the original judgment confirming the plaintiffs' entitlement to a share in the property is upheld (!) (!) .

In summary, the court has held that the first defendant was acting as a trustee and nominee for the heirs of the deceased, and her actions do not establish absolute ownership. The plaintiffs' claim for partition and their right to their respective shares are recognized, and the appeal is dismissed accordingly.