JUDGMENT

1. These appeals are connected, and can be disposed of by one judgment. They arise out of a decision, dated 31st August 1931, by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Lucknow. The suit was based upon a simple mortgage-deed dated 31st May 1920, executed by a Mrs. Pearson in favour of one Salimullah. The consideration of the deed was Rs. 12,000, with interest at 9 per cent per annum, compoundable half-yearly. The amount alleged to be due at the date of the suit was Rs. 30,021, of which Rs. 30,000 was claimed. The learned lower Court passed a preliminary decree for the sale of the property concerned in satisfaction of the amount claimed, and decided that defendants 5 to 12 in the suit were entitled to their legal shares in the decree. We have before us appeal No. 106 by one Mt. Soghra Begam, defendant 12 in the suit, and appeal No. 111, by three of the four plaintiffs. To explain the matter at issue in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the genealogical table of the plaintiff's' family. It is as follows: (sic)

2. Salimullah died in 1927, and Sharfuddin died in 1929. The other three sons of Salimullah are alive, and so is his widow, Mt. Habibunnissa. Those four persons were the plaintiffs in the suit. Sharfuddin's first wife died issueless, and he afterwards took one Mt. Rahmati either as his mistress or his wife, and is said to have had by her six children, Nazamuddin, Shitabuddin, Qamruddin, Jamaluddin, Mt. Bano Khatun and Mt. Zohra Begam, of whom Jamaiuddin and Mt. Zohra Begam are still minors. Sharfuddin afterwards married one Mt. Soghra Begam. It was the plaintiffs' case that Mt. Rahmati was merely the mistress of Sharfuddin and that she and her children, the latter being illegitimate, were no heirs of Sharfuddin, and not entitled to any share in the money due under the mortgage. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs in the course of the opening proceedings that Mt. Soghra Begam had been divorced by Sharfuddin, and was therefore no heir to him. Mt. Soghra Begam's counsel moreover raised a question whether the six children who have been named were Sharfuddin's issue at all. The plaintiffs (the three, surviving sons and the widow of Salimullah), ar-rayed as defendants the following parties: (1) Mr. Hemisphere, (2) P. Sarup Narain Bakhshi, (3) Sheikh Mohamad Sadiq, (4) Sheikh Mahomad Baqar, (5) Nizamuddin, (6) Shitabuddin, (7) Qamruddin, (8) Jamaluddin, (9) Mt. Bano Khatun, (10) Mt. Zohra Begam, (11) Mt. Rahmati Begam, (12) Mt. Soghra Begam, (13) Mrs. M. Hare. Mrs. Pearson, the original mortgagor, afterwards became Mrs. Hemisphere; she is dead. Mrs. Hare is her sister. Defendant 2 is a subsequent transferee of the property, and defendants 3 and 4 are heirs of another subsequent transferee. Defendants 5 to 10 are the alleged children of Sharfuddin by Mt. Rahmati Begam, who is herself defendant 11. Mt. Soghra Begam is defendant 12. The learned lower Court found Mt. Rahmati Begam to have been the wife of Sharfuddin, and her children to be the legitimate offspring of Sharfuddin. It was also found that Mt. Soghra Begam was never divorced. The result was that the learned lower Court found the defendants 5 to 12 inclusive to be entitled to shares in the amount due under the mortgage. It is no longer contended that Mt. Soghra Begam was ever divorced by Sharfuddin, nor is it any longer suggested that defendants 5 to 10 were not, in fact, the children of Mt. Rahmati Begam by Shrafuddin. The only points argued before us have been whether Mt. Rahmati Begam was divorced and afterwards became the married wife of Sharfuddin, and were her children by him therefore legitimate, or not ? The three surviving sons of Salimullah (appellants in appeal No. 111), and Mt. Soghra Begham, (appellant in appeal No. 106) make common cause in answering the above questions in the negative, and in denying that those parties are heirs to Sharfuddin.

3. It must be mentioned, in the first place, that Mt. Rahmati Begam was originally the wife of