R. R. RASTOGI, J. :- These two appeals are inter-linked and may be conveniently taken up together.

2. The following pedigree is relevant for the appreciation of the case.

3. Sahu Har Prasad and Raja Radha Raman of Pilibhit had an oil mill at Pilibhit. At the same time Ghasi Ram and Bhikhari Das was a firm carrying on business in food grains of a long standing at Pilibhit. This firm entered into a partnership with Sahu Har Prasad and Raja Radha Raman under an instrument of partnership executed on 20-1-1926. The management of the oil mill was entrusted to the firm. It appears that the business did not prosper and there were losses and as on 12-5-1934 when accounts were taken the share of the firm in the losses came to Rs. 21046/13/-. The firm executed a pronote in respect of that amount in favour of Sahu Har Prasad and Raja Radha Raman. Sometime thereafter partnership was formed between this firm and the aforesaid two gentlemen for running the oil mill business and Ram Swarup was entrusted with the job of looking after that business. From the profits of that business some payments were made towards the aforesaid pronote and on 31-3-37 it was renewed for Rs. 20046/13/- and again on 21-1-40 for Rs. 16900/-.

4. The business of the oil mill again ran into difficulties because Ram Swarup made some withdrawals for payments on behalf of the partnership firm but did not debit those amounts in the books of the firm. Further, he made some realisations on behalf of the firm but did not credit those amounts in the books of the firm. Ultimately when Sahu Har Prasad came (Contd. on Col. 2) to know of the sorry state of affairs in which this business was, he asked for accounts. On 30-8-40 some sort of accounting was done and Sri Ram one of the sons of Ram Swarup who was a major at that time wrote out the accounts and it was found that a sum of Rs. 26398/-10/3 which had not been credited in the books of the firm had been misappropriated by Ram Swarup. By that time the family comprised of Genda Mal his son Ram Swarup grandson Sri Ram and the three sons of Madho Ram, as adult members. Further, this family was possessed of eleven items of immoveable properties. They agreed to sell all these properties to Sahu Har Prasad and Raja Radha Raman for a total sum of Rs. 44100/-. The consideration being comprised of the amount due on the pronote dated 21-1-1940 and the amount which was found to have been misappropriated by Ram Swarup. The remaining amount appears to have been given up by Sahu Har Prasad and Raja Radha Raman. This sale deed was executed on 3-9-1940.

5. On the very next day i. e. 4-9-1940 Sahu Har Prasad and Raja Radha Raman sold properties Nos.8, 9 and 10 to Lala Parshadi Lal, who is father-in-law of one of the sons of Madho Ram. The consideration was Rs. 7000/-. Property No.8 is the residential house of Genda Mal and Ram Swarup.

6. It appears that these persons did not vacate that house and Parshadi Lal filed a suit against them being suit No.4 of 1942. That suit was decreed ex parte and in the execution of that decree Parshadi Lal obtained actual possession over this property, on 22-5-1944. On 5-7-1944, Sri Ram and the other three sons of Ram Swarup who were noticed filed an objection under O.20 R.100 C.P.C., being Misc. Case No.117 of 1944. Their claim was accepted and it was held in those proceedings that the sale deed dated 3-9-1940 aforesaid being in lieu of embezzled amount was not binding on the sons of Ram Swarup. Restoration of possession was directed to be made. Parshadi Lal filed a revision against that order in the High Court and obtained an interim stay order. The revision was not admitted and Parshadi Lal filed suit No.8 of 1945 against Sri Ram and his brothers for declaration that he was owner of house No.3 and was entitled to remain in proprietary possession thereof.

7. The suit has been contested by the sons of Ram Swarup and the main defence is that the sale deed having been executed in respect of embezzled amounts