Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. These appeals arise out of suits in ejectment instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of various items of properties comprised in the schedules to the plaints. The parties to the suit are governed by Muhammadan Law and their relationship appears from the following genealogical table.

Kunhamad | _________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | Moideen Mamavu Avulla Biyathu- Umacha Periyaya Amina married married married mma chi Amina Pathuma Uppannu | | | | | ____________ | | | | Kunhamad Umacha | Kutti |____________________________________________________________ | | | | | | Kunhi Pa- Ummayya Biyathumma Periyayachi Ammad (Plf.) Moothan thumma | ___________________________________ | | Pokker (Dead) Ammad (Dead) | | 1st Deft. 12th Deft.

2. All the suits were tried together and the evidence appears to have been taken in O.S. No. 261 of 1927 out of which S.A. No. 1862 of 1931 arises. It will appear from the above genealogy that defendants 1 and 12 therein are the son and daughter of one Pokker, the nephew of the plaintiff. They were also the main contesting defendants in the other suits. It is common ground that