R.S.PATHAK, J.

(1) THESE appeals arise out of two suits for partition of Hindu coparcenary properties.

(2) THE principal parlies to the suits are P. S. Narayana lyer and his four sons. The eldest son, Easwara lyer, instituted Suit 367 of 1950, and the third son, Ramachandra lyer, was the plaintiff in Suit 474 of 1950. The suits relate to the same properties.

(3) THERE was a joint Hindu family consisting of Narayana Pattar, his three sons, Appu Pattar, Samu Pattar, Venkatarama Pal tar and their families. The geneological table is set out below :

(4) FOR greater convenience, the parties will be described hereafter as plaintiff and defendants according to their array in Suit 367 of 1950.

(5) THE family carried on a banking business and owned forest lands, wet lands and dry lands, tile works, ginning and groundnut factories. The coparcenary properties are situated in territories now included in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

(6) ON the death of Appu Pattar in 1900, the family affairs were managed by Samu Pattar until his death in 1925. The first defendant, his son was in the service of the Madras Bank (later the Imperial Bank, Madras) from 1907, and after postings at Tuticorin, Madurai, and Madras, he retired from the Bank in 1924, Even before Samu Pattars death, he was actively involved in the family business, and from 1925 he assumed-complete control of the family business and properties. The larger family continued joint until 1932, when there was a division in status. The actual division of the coparcenary properties occupied some years, and was finalised by a registered deed of partition dated 9/09/1939. The properties were partitioned between the separate branches of the larger family) and the share of Samu Pattars branch was divided between his sons. This left the first defendant in separate possession of the share of his own family.

(7) WHILE the division of the coparcenary properties of the larger family was still in progress, differences arose between the first defendant and his eldest son, the plaintiff. By a letter dated 13/01/1940 the father informed the son that they would cease to be joint, and there would be a division of the properties falling to the shares of their branch. This was incorporated in a registered deed of partition dated 26/10/1943 under which, among other things, the first defendant retained for himself cash and certain properties, including properties allotted by the larger family for payment of its debts to the sons of the first defendant. The arrangement so effected was not accepted by the plaintiff. He instituted Suit I of 1940 for recovery of a debt of Rs. 27,633.00 owed to him by the larger family. On 20/07/1943 the suit was decreed and the decree was satisfied by the first defendant.

(8) THEREAFTER the suits, out of which the present appeals arise) were instituted by the plaintiff and the. third defendant for partition of the coparcenary properties belonging to the first defendant and his branch. Reference will be made to the properties as they have been detailed in the Schedules appended to the plaint in Suit 367 of 1950.

(9) THERE is no dispute between the parties in regard to the properties at items 1 to 171 of Schedule A, as admittedly they were allotted specifically to this branch on the partition of the larger family. As regards the properties at items 172 to 282, they were put into the possession of the first defendant at that partition for discharging debts totalling Rs. 90,000.00 owed by the larger family to the sons of the first defendant. Those properties were, however, claimed by the first defendant as his separate property. Out of them, he settled the properties at items 210 to 282 (described as the "Karulai Estate") on the second defendant and his sons by a registered instrument dated June 21, 194J. And except for the properties at items 327, 328 and 330 which the second defendant claimed as his