( 1 ) THE Sanskrit Pustakonnati Sabha, Itawah (respondent 1-B) through its seven trustees (respondents 1-A (1) to 1-A (7) and the Temple of Shri Mahasaraswatiji, itawah (respondent 2), hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, brought Civil Suit no. 25-A of 1961, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, for possession of properties detailed in Schedules A and B attached to the plaint, against the appellant Rameshwar Prasad. The trial Court impleaded one Ram dulare as defendant 2 in the case on an application made by him on 11-7-1963. The suit was decreed with respect to only part of the properties claimed against rameshwar Prasad. He has, therefore, filed this appeal. Ram Dulare, defendant 2, also has been impleaded in the appeal as respondent 4.

( 2 ) IT is no longer in dispute that the property in suit belonged to one Bal Govind who died, leaving behind two sons Sitaram and Raghuvar Dayal, Sitaram died on 27-7-1920, leaving his widow Dulari Bai as his only heir. Raghuvar Dayal died on 11-6-1923, leaving behind his widow Shahzadi Bai. Both these widows continued in possession of the properties. Shahzadi Bai died on 12-8-1955 and Dulari Bai died on 30-1-1960,

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs was that Raghuvar Dayal executed a will on 31-5-1923 by which he bequeathed the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiffs, subject to the life interest of the two widows Shahzadi Bai and Dulari Bai. They are, therefore, entitled to possession of the properties after the death of the last surviving widow Dulari Bai on 30-1-1960. However, the properties have been taken possession of by the defendant Rameshwar Prasad (appellant) without any right or title. Accordingly, they claimed possession of the properties from him.

( 4 ) THE defendant Rameshwar Prasad denied that any will was executed by raghuvar Dayal and pleaded that even if any will was executed by him, he did so in unsound mental condition. The will, if any, therefore, did not bind the estate. Rameshwar Prasad himself is the son of Raghuvar Dayal's wife's sister. He pleaded that he was living with the two widows and managing their estate on their behalf. The two widows executed a joint will in his favour on 7-12-1944 and after the death of Shahzadi Bai, Dulari Bai executed another will in his favour on 7-4-1956. Accordingly he claims that he is entitled to retain possession of the properties under the two wills. Ram Dulare (respondent 4), who was subsequently impleaded on his application, claims to be the nephew of Raghuvar Dayal. He joined defendant Rameshwar prasad in denying the will in favour of the plaintiffs. He further pleaded that there was a partition between Sitaram and Raghuvar Dayal in their lifetime, according to which Sitaram separated his half interest in the family property. That interest continued with Sitaram's widow Dulari Bai and after her death, passed to him. He denied the wills set up by the defendant Rameshwar Prasad and claimed that all the properties left by Sitaram and Raghuvar Dayal passed to him after the death of the two widows.

( 5 ) THE trial court found that Raghuvar Dayal had made the will as pleaded by the plaintiffs, but held that Sitaram and Raghuvar Dayal had divided the family property between themselves and, therefore, the will could operate only to the extent of the share of Raghuvar Dayal in the property. Accordingly, the claim was decreed only as regards Raghuvar Dayal's share. It was also held that the two widows had executed wills in favour of Rameshwar Prasad, but the wills were got executed by him under undue influence. Accordingly, it was held that Rameshwar prasad was not entitled to claim any property under those wills. So far as the defendant Ram Dulare is concerned, the court held that he was entitled to part of the properties, but no decree in his favour was passed as the court held that a separate suit was the proper remedy for him.

( 6 ) SEVERAL other defences were raised by the defendants to a