Subrahmania Aiyar, J.

1. Under the will of the late Thomas Edmonds, the house--plaint item No. 2 which is the only property in dispute in this appeal, should be taken to have been devised by the testator to his children, eleven in number. The plaintiffs, who are two of the eleven children, became, therefore, on their fathers death, entitled each to her share. Assuming for the present that the transactions, under which the sixth defendant (the appellant) claims the property in question, are, as contended on behalf of the plaintiffs, not binding on any of the devisees, the plaintiffs cannot get relief beyond the extend of their interest: They have certainly no right to ask for possession of more than their shares should they seek any possession. It is clear, therefore, that the decree of the Lower-Court, which awards possession of the whole property to the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the other devisees, cannot, as it stands, be sustained.

2. The question for consideration is whether the plaintiffs cannot recover even their shares. Before proceeding to consider this question, it should be stated it was assumed in the Lower Court that the 1st defendant, though appointe