( 1 ) THE two appeals were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Misc. First Appeal No. 15/1973 is preferred by the contesting defendants, while Misc. F. A. No. 18/1973 is by the plaintiff, since deceased and represented by his legal representatives.

( 2 ) ON 31-10-1966 plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration, partition and mesne profits in which judgment was rendered on 2-2-1973. Plaintiff's claim was decreed in part. In their appeal (Misc. F. A. No. 15/1973) the contesting defendants have made a grievance not only against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff but also in favour of defendant 15 by the trial Court.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff came up with a case that in respect of the land of Schedule A of the plaint he was a 'pakka Krishak' with 'mourusi' rights on the material date, namely, 20-6-1950, and that he was 'up Krishak' (Shikmi) in respect of Schedule B land, under Gulab Kunwar, admittedly, a widow. On 20-6-1950 Madhya Bharat Model Farming Society (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') was formed with those lands and some other lands thrown into hotchpotch by one Harbilas Singh, not impleaded in the suit. The Society was, admittedly, an unregistered body and was formed with six members with the two contributors, namely, the plaintiff and Harbilash Singh, and four others who were defendant 14 Raja Pancham Singh, defendant No. 18 Rao Sultan Singh, defendant No. 16 Thakur Narendra Singh and defendant 17 Pt. Vishnu Datt. As per deed of agreement between the four members of the Society, according to the plaintiff, he was given 2 annas and 2 paise (old) share in the lands of the Society, while Raja Pancham Singh was given 10 annas share, but defendant 15 Kanhaiyalal had an interest to the extent of 2 paise in that share of Raja Pancham Singh. Other members, Harbilas and Rao Sultan Singh, were each given one anna share, and Narendra Singh and Vishnu Datt were each given 3 paise share in the lands of the Society. However, he admitted that he had sold his 21/2 annas share for a consideration of Rs. 8000/- vide Ext. D-1, dated 29-6-1965, to the contesting defendants namely, defendants 1 to 13. In the suit he laid claim for declaration and partition with respect to one anna share ' in Schedule A land which he had purchased for Rs. 1500/- as per Ext. P-4 on 6-7-65 from three sons of Harbilas, who died, in the meantime, in 1958. He made a further claim in the suit, similarly, for 31/2 annas share in Schedule B land on the footing that his original 21/2 annas share therein had remained unalienated and his purchase from 3 sons of Harbilas vide Ext. P-4 also included one anna share in Schedule B land. Admittedly, other members of the Society had alienated their share in the suit land to the contesting defendants.

( 4 ) IN the course of hearing of the appeal when Ext. P-1 was examined and its content and effect analysed, the plaintiff's counsel was faced with a situation under which it became necessary for the Court to consider the possibility of the suit being dismissed. That happened on 12-5-1989. Accordingly, on 16-5-1989 I. A. No. XI was filed on behalf of the plaintiff in F. A. No. 18/1973 praying for leave to amend the plaint. By that application para 5 (a) is sought to be inserted in the plaint and consequent amendment in the relief para is also prayed by adding para 1 (a) therein. By the amendment the plaintiff seeks to set up a new case that if under Ext. P1 the Court holds that no transfer had taken place in favour of the members of the Society, the plaintiff be declared Bhumiswami of the land covered there under in the right of his original title and, accordingly, the several sale deeds executed by the members of the Society be declared void. On the proof of that claim, plaintiff has sought the relief that Ext. P-1 be declared void and the entire suitland be declared of the exclusive title of the plaintiff. When hearing of the two appeals was resumed on 16