JUDGMENT

Collister, J. - This is a defendants' appeal. The suit was for possession of a house at Allahabad, an haveli at Anapur, some house sites in the city of Benares, some property endowed to defendant 5 and a big landed estate comprising many villages in several districts. The headquarters of the estate are at Anapur in the District of Allahabad and its annual income is said to be Rs. 75,920, and mesne profits at this rate are also claimed. The property is known as the Anapur Estate. There is a pedigree in the lower Court's judgment at page 152 of our paper-book which gives the date of birth and the date of death of various members of the family, and this pedigree is admitted by the parties. It will be seen that one Chintaman Singh was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants 1, 2 and 7. Defendants 3 and 4 are nephews of Babuain Jodha Kunwar, the wife of Gauri Shanker Prasad Singh. As will shortly be seen, the latter-who died in 1902-figures prominently in the dispute. Defendant 5 is a deity and a Pathshala. Defendant 6 is a lessee from Babuain Jodha Kunwar: but he did not put in an appearance. The principal defendants are 1 and 2, namely Bhagwati Saran Singh and his cousin Bindeshwari Saran Singh. They and their nephew, defendant 7, are descended from one of the three sons of Chintaman Singh, a man named Bishun Dat Singh. A joint written statement was put in by defendants 1, 2 and 5. Another written statement was filed by defendants 3 and 4, Ram Subhag Singh and Sukhdeo Narain Singh, who, as I have already said, are the nephews of Babuain Jodha Kunwar, now deceased. They were represented by counsel at the trial of the suit, but he apparently took no part in the proceedings. They have nevertheless joined in this appeal. There is on the record a third written statement on behalf of defendant 7 but he did not contest the suit and has not appealed.

2. The plaintiffs are Parmeshwari Nandan Singh and Audeshwari Nandan Singh. They are the sons of Babuain Raj Kishori Kunwar and are directly descended from Deoki Nandan Singh, who was one of the three Sons of Chintaman Singh and was a brother of Bishun Dat Singh, the ancestor of defendants 1, 2 and 7, The allegations in the plaint were to the following effect: The property in dispute was acquired by Deoki Nandan Singh. In course of time, it was inherited by his son and subsequently it passed by survivorship to his two grandsons, Ram Ratan Singh and Ram Parsan Singh. Ram Ratan Singh died on 31st December 1846 leaving two sons, Har Shanker Prasad Singh and Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh. Har Shanker Prasad Singh was born in 1835 and died on 16th June 1903. Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh was born on 2nd February 1842 and died in August 1902. Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh was born deaf, dumb and blind and was a congenital lunatic, and subsequently it became known that he was also congenitally impotent. After the death of Ram Ratan Singh the property passed by survivorship to Har Shankar Prasad Singh and his uncle Ram Parsan Singh. Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh, owing to his disability, was only entitled under the Hindu law to maintenance and protection. Ram Parsan Singh died on 29th January 1854 leaving a widow, Babuain Narain Kunwar. Thus Har Shankar Prasad Singh became the exclusive owner of the property, with an obligation to maintain his brother and his aunt, namely Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh and Babuain Narain Kunwar.

3. At the date of Ram Parsan Singh's death in 1854 no debts were due from the family; but Har Shankar Prasad Singh was improvident, extravagant and licentious and he began to borrow money right and left and soon fell very heavily into debt. In course of time, several decrees for money and decrees for sale of property were obtained against him by his creditors and he then devised a plan for saving half the property. He gave it out that Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh had not been born deaf, dumb, blind and an idiot and he schemed to save a moiety of the property as belonging to