JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against the decree dated 4th May 1931 of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Sitapur dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

2. One Bhupat Singh had three sons: Chandrika Singh, Jangoo Singh and Sadha Singh. Chandrika Singh had a son Girdhara Singh who pre-deceased his father leaving two minor sons Rajendra. Singh and Indra Badadur. In July 1927 Madho Ram, defendant 8, obtained a simple money decree against Rajendra Singh, defendant 6, and Indra Bahadur defendant 7, on the basis of a pro-note which had been executed in his favour by Chandrika Singh. In execution of this decree Madho Ram Attached and put to sale the mortgagee rights of Chandrika Singh in two mortgage deeds, one executed by Mangal Singh defendant 1, dated 21st June 1922 (Ex. 1) and the other executed by Kesho Singh, defen. dant 2, dated 30th January 19-2 (Ex. 2). They were purchased by Gajodhar Singh, defendant 3, and Harpal Singh, defendant 4, respectively on 16th April 1930.

3. The plaintiff Sadha Singh instituted the suit which has given rise to the present appeal for a declaration that the two mortgage deeds Exs. 1 and 2 were joint family property, that the sale of the two deeds was therefore void and that the auction purchasers, defendants 3 and 4, had acquired no rights thereunder. Sadhari Lal and Kanahaiya Lal, defendants 9 and 10, were subsequently impleaded on the allegation that they bad received some portion of the auction money when the sale proceeds were rateably distributed. Jangoo Singh brother of Sadha Singh was originally im-pleaded as defendant 5 but was subsequently added as a plaintiff and the plaint was amended accordingly. The plaintiff's case was that the family of Bhupat Singh was possessed of considerable ancestral property, that at first Bhupat Singh was the manager of the family, that subsequently during the lifetime of Bhupat Singh Chandrika Singh became the manager and continued to be so till his death, and that after the death of Chandrika Singh Jangoo Singh became manager and continued so till the time of the institution of the suit. It was also alleged that Bhupat Singh and Chandrika Singh, while they acted as managers, acquired various properties, sometimes in the name of one member of the family and sometimes in the name of another, and that the properties so acquired were always treated as joint family properties. As regards the decree obtained by Madho Ram in July 1927, it was alleged that the pro-note on the basis of which the decree had been passed was not executed for any family necessity, that the decree was not binding on the plaintiff's, and the joint family properties were not liable for its satisfaction.

4. The defendants denied the allegation about Chandrika Sihgh having been a member of a joint Hindu family composed of himself, his father and brothers and pleaded that there had been a separation between him and the other members of the family. They also alleged that the mortgage deeds Exs. 1 and 2 were the separate self-acquired property of Chandrika Singh and were therefore liable to sale in execution of the decree obtained by Madho Ram. Madho Earn, defendant 8, further pleaded that the plaintiffs were parties to the execution proceedings and were by their conduct estopped from maintaining the present suit. Gajodhar Singh, defendant 3, the auction purchaser of the mortgage deed Ex. 1, also claimed the protection of Section 41, T.P. Act, on the ground of his being a purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration. Several other pleas were raised in defence, but they have all been decided against the defendants and the findings in respect of them have not been questioned before us. It is not therefore necessary to state them.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the mortgage deeds Exs. 1 and 2 were the self-acquired property of Chandrika Singh, that defendant 3 was a, bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and that the pl