1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by respondent No. 1. The appellants were impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 2 was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit.

2. It is not disputed that the parties constituted a joint family. Respondent No. 2 is the elder brother of respondent No. 1. The appellants are the nephews of the respondents being the sons of the deceased brother of the two respondents. The following genealogy is helpful in understanding the case:

3. The family owns two villages Patharia and Godhi with sir' and khudkasht lands. The family also owns malik ala rights in three villages. It was alleged in the plaint that during the lifetime of Dau Dilipsingh he was looking after mauza' Godhi while respondent No. 2 was managing the affairs of Patharia. Dilipsingh died in 1930-31. Dau Gokul Lal died in 1932-33. The case of the appellants as well as respondent No. 1 is that respondent No. 2 was the manager of the family in charge of all the joint family properties, movables and immovables. The suit was instituted as respondent No. 1 felt dissatisfied with the management of respondent No. 2. The two appellants who were eight and thr