1. This appeal comes before us on a reference by Mangalmurti J., who referred this case because in the learned Judge's opinion it involved important points about the nature of the interest acquired by a purchaser at an auction sale of a share of a coparcener in a joint Hindu family, and also a question of limitation of some importance.

2. The facts of the case are somewhat complicated. To understand them the following genealogy is helpful:

3. The present appeal has been filed by Defendants 2, 7, 9 to 12, 14, 16 and 17. The Plaintiff Dnyanoba has since died and is represented by his two sons Dattatraya and Digambar. There is an application on the record of this case by Dattatraya that in a family partition between him and his brother the property in this suit has fallen to his share exclusively, and he has asked us to delete the name of Digambar and to award the decree, if made, in the appeal exclusively in his favour.

4. The remaining Defendants were shown as Respondents in the appeal. Some of them have been transposed by an order of this Court made on 21-3-1952 and now are shown as Appellants. We need not go into the arrangement of the parties or of the cause title because in