T.C. Shrivastava, J.

Appellant Smt. Nanhibai alias Tulsibai instituted Civil Suit No. 3-A of 1956 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, for possession of lands to the extent of one-half share and mesne profits for the years 1947-48 to 1949-50. The suit was dismissed. She has therefore filed this first appeal.

The following genealogical tree shows the relationship between the parties: The Plaintiff (Appellant) is thus the daughter of Naraindas and the Defendants (Respondents) are the sons of Naraindas's brother Ganpatlal. Mangilal died on 4-7-1893, Ghasiram on 20-11-1897 and Naraindas on 10-12-1920.

The Plaintiff's case was that Mangilal and Ghasiram both had purchased village Nasirabad for a consideration of Rs.5,000 on 26-2-1887 and they both had an equal share in it. The village was thus shown in their names in equal shares of 0-8-0 each in the settlement khewat of 1891-92 (see Exh. P-1). After the death of Mangilal in 1893, his share was mutated in the names of Naraindas and Ganpatlal, while Ghasiram continued to own his 0-8-0 share. When Ghasiram died in 1897, his share was recorded in the names of Naraindas and Ganpatlal in equal shares. Thus Naraindas and Ganpatlal each owned half and half share in that village. Between the years 1901-1903 villages Nagwada, Mahendrawadi, Kotgaon and Jamuniya were acquired by the two brothers Naraindas and Ganpatlal. The Plaintiff did not state whether Mangilal and Ghasiram formed a joint family or not. She also did not know whether Mangilal, Naraindas and Ganpatlal were joint or separate (para. 3 of the plaint). However, she alleged that as Mangilal had no ancestral property, the village Nasirabad which was purchased jointly in the names of Mangilal and Ghasiram was their common property in equal shares of 0-8-0 each. Similarly, the other villages which were purchased by Naraindas and Ganpatlal should be considered to be their common property, each owning half a share. It was also alleged that these two brothers effected a partition of their estate some time after the death of Ghasiram and before the death of Naraindas, though the Plaintiff was unable to say when that happened. She claimed that the property left by Naraindas passed to his widow Mst. Chhutiyabai, but Ganpatlal induced her to have the property recorded in the name of his son Badriprasad (Defendant No. 1) alleging that he had been adopted by Naraindas. Ultimately, the whole property was taken over by Ganpatlal after the death of Mst. Chhutiyabai in 1940; and when Ganpatlal died in 1941, his three sons, who are the Defendants in this case, took over the same. The Plaintiff claimed that the share of Naraindas descended on her after Mst. Chhutiyabai and the Defendants had no interest in it. She therefore filed the aforesaid suit for possession.

The Defendants' case was that Mangilal was joint with his three sons Ghasiram, Naraindas and Ganpatlal and that they were doing business in the name of "Baldeo Mangilal". The consideration for the purchase of village Nasirabad was advanced by Mangilal from the funds of the shop, and Ghasiram, who was the eldest son, was nominally joined in the sale-deed on the basis of which the village came to be recorded in equal shares of 0-8-0 each in their names. The family continued joint and after Mangilal's death, his property passed by survivorship to the other two brothers. It was further alleged that the villages purchased by Naraindas and Ganpatlal were also joint family properties and after the death of Naraindas, they passed to Ganpatlal to the exclusion of Naraindas's widow. The partition alleged by the Plaintiff was denied by the Defendants. As the family continued joint and the whole property passed by survivorship to Ganpatlal, the Plaintiff's claim to the properties was denied.

The trial Court found that Mangilal and Ghasiram formed a joint Hindu family with Naraindas and Ganpatlal. The pillage Nasirabad was purchased with the joint funds of the family and aft