JUDGMENT

1. This is the defendants' appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sultanpur, dated 2nd May 1928, reversing the decree of the Munsif of the same place dated 18th May 1927 in so far as it was under appeal before him.

2. There was some contest at the outset 'but it is now agreed that the property in dispute originally belonged to a joint Hindu family consisting of five brothers, with three of whom only we are now concerned. They were Maheshwar Singh, Hamir Singh and Jageshar Singh. Maheshar Singh was the manager of the family estate. On 2nd July 1877, he made a usufructuary mortgage of property in suit less by two plots in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, Sarup Singh. It is common ground that in pursuance of that mortgage the mortgagee entered into possession of the mortgaged property and it is also common ground that so far as bare possession, apart from the question as to title, is concerned it has always been with the mortgagee and after his death with his successors-in-interest. On 15th June 1882, the other brother, Hamir Singh, executed a sale-deed in respect of the mortgaged property plus two more plots in favour of the mortgagee. In the recital contained in the deed of sale the mortgage of July 1877 is mentioned and it is also mentioned that a part of the sale consideration was to be utilized towards redemption of that mortgage. It is agreed that Hamir Singh as a member of a joint Hindu family could not make any alienation in respect of any portion of the family property without the consent of the other members of the family and consequently the sale of 1882 without such a consent, was a void transaction. In the year 1884 certain proceedings seem to have been taken in the Courts of revenue in relation to mutation of names. We have neither the application made for mutation of names nor the order of the Court passed thereon before us. There are two papers only on the record of this case connected with those proceedings. They are Exs. 2 and 4. Ex. 2 describes the name of the case, giving details of the names of the parties, the date of the decision and it also contains a note that certain papers then existing on the file had been destroyed. One of such papers is described as a bainama. To this matter we will advert hereafter again. Ex. 4 is a certified copy of register No. 3-A. It has several columns. We will now mention some of the entries appearing in these columns. Col. 2 gives the date of order as 15th April 1884. This tallies with the entry in Ex. 2. Col. 3 is intended for an entry as to the date of a mortgage. In this column we find 15th June 1882. Col. 4 gives the description of the property. Col. 5 is for the entry of the name of the mortgagor and Col. 6 for the name of the mortgagee. In the former column the name of Hamir Singh and in the latter column the name of Sarup Singh are entered. Cols. 7 and 8 are intended for the entry of the area and the numbers of the plots mortgaged. These columns contain the plots in suit which are the same as the mortgaged lands plus two more plots. They are Nos. 1035 and 1319. As we have said before, these were added by Hamir Singh in his sale-deed of 15th June 1882.

3. In recent times according to the case of the plaintiffs-respondents they got information that the entries in register No. 3-A were erroneous. Thereupon they moved the Courts of revenue for correction and the case which they put forward was that the entries instead of recording a transfer of property in suit by way of mortgage should have been by way of sale. The attempt has failed and according to the allegation contained in para. 5 of the plaint that has given the cause of action for the suit, out of which this appeal arises, the object of the present suit is to obtain a declaration that the properties in suit are held by the plaintiffs as owners thereof under the deed of sale dated 15th June 1882, and the defendants have no title thereto.

4. The Court of first instance on the gro