Though the plaint is not worded in legal phraseology, we think that the allegations therein are intended to convey that the 2nd defendant, a co-owner with the plaintiffs of a certain debt, “availing himself of his position as such” gained the advantage of a fresh deed for the debt in his sole name in derogation of the plaintiffs' right. Put in this manner the plaintiffs have a cause of action for a declaration that the 2nd defendant holds that document for the plaintiffs' benefit also, the plaintiffs having a 4/5th interest in it (see Section 90 of the Trusts Act).
That was practically the decree given by the District Munsif and the learned District Judge ought not to have disturbed that decree. His decision is set aside, and the District Munsif's decree restored with costs in this and in the Lower Appellate. Court.
The connected Second Appeals follow.
Appeal allowed.