Lord Buckmaster. -

The appellant claims that he, his brother respondent 1 and his brother's two minor sons who are respondents 2 and 3 together form a joint and undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law as administered in Madras and consequently that a half share of a dwelling house and certain other property in the possession of respondent are joint estate. That the family is a joint family and that it still remains undivided is not in dispute; the real question is whether there exists any joint property in which the appellant would be entitled to share. The appellant and respondent 1 are the sons of one Vairavan Chetty, who is stated in the evidence to have died in 1883, but is found by the Court to have died in 1886; the statement in the evidence may be a misprint, or it may be a misunderstanding - 1886 appears to have been accepted as the date of his death. Apart from the two brothers the father left him surviving a widow and two daughters, but the only property which it is established that he possessed was a share or interest in a house along with his brother, and certain funds in respect of which respondent 1 received Rs. 1129-1-6 on 6th March 1899, and Rs. 580-11-0 on