(1.) The plaintiffs-respondents brought a suit No. 202 of 1917 against one Pandharinath and his brother Dattatraya and two others for account and for the balance due in respect of a partnership. A final decree was passed on October 19,1921, ordering Pandharinath, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit, to pay to the respondents (the original plaintiffs) the sum of money stated in the decree, Pandharinath, defendant No. 1, died in 1923. His brother Dattatraya, who was defendant No. 2 to the suit, had predeceased him.
(2.) The decree-holders (the present respondents) then filed a darkhast and attached certain properties belonging to the joint family. This darkhast was filed during the lifetime of Pandharinath, and the attachment was made when he was alive. On his death, the darkhast was withdrawn and a fresh darkhast was filed. It is this darkhast which led to the present second appeal.
(3.) The appellants who are the sons of Pandharinath filed an application in the darkhast proceeding. It was numbered as Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 1926. They prayed for the release of the properties from the attachment or in the alternative they contended that it should be declared that only the one-eighth of Pandharinath was liable.