JUDGMENT

P. K. MISRA, J. — Plaintiff has filed this appeal against a confirming decision. The suit was filed for declaration of the exclusive right of the plaintiff over the disputed properties and for declaration that the licence issued in favour of defendant No. 1 is fraudulent and for confirmation of possession. The dis¬puted properties, as described in ‘A’ Schedule are certain ma¬chinery. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :

Defendant No. 4 is the father-in-law of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are her brothers-in-law being the younger brothers of her husband. From her own fund and by incurring loan from the United Commercial Bank, the machinery in question had been purchased by the plaintiff and had been installed for the purpose of running a huller and mill. Since the plaintiff’s husband and other defendants were remaining in joint family and there was good relationship among themselves and defendant No. 1 was sitting idle after graduation without any employment the plaintiff had handed over the papers for obtaining licence from competent authority for running the huller, but defendant No. 1 fraudulently obtained licence in his name by practising fraud. However, pla