Lord Tomlin-

This is an appeal against a decree dated 18th November 1924, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, modifying a decree dated 19th January 1922, and made by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur on the trial of the suit.

The questions in the suit relate to the affairs of a joint Hindu family belonging to the Kamma sect of the Sudra caste and resident and holding lands in the Narasaraopet taluk of the Guntur District.

The family consisted of four brothers. The eldest brother had long before the material events separated himself from the family, and is, therefore, out of the case.

The second brother, Ramanna whose death led to the litigation, had an only son, Naganna, who predeceased him in April 1908, childless, but leaving a widow.

The third brother, Subbanna, the plaintiff in the suit and since deceased, had two sons, one of whom died in 1914, and the other of whom, named Virayya, is the present appellant.

The fourth brother, Adenna, had three sons, of whom the second was named Narasayya. Adenna and his three sons are the respondents on this appeal.

Ramanna died on 27th October 1908, leaving no natural son surviving him.

The present suit was launched on 17th August 1920, in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur, by the third brother, Subbanna, the father of the appellant, against all the other members of the joint family, including the appellant and the widows of Ramanna and Naganna.

In his plaint Subanna alleged that there had been a division of status between the three brothers in 1908, after the death of Naganna, and a partition between them of certain immovable property. He further alleged that Ramanna, shortly before his death, had adopted the appellant and had subsequently made a will dated 25th October 1908, in which he referred to and recognized: (a) the division in status which had taken place between himself and his brothers; (b) the partial division of this joint property, and (c) the adoption of the appellant, and by which also he gave directions for the appellant to receive the testator's one-third share of the undivided family property and imposed upon him certain obligations in respect of the proper maintenance of the testator's widow, daughter-in-law and daughter.

Upon the basis of these allegations of fact Subbanna claimed that he was entitled to one-third share of the undivided family property or, alternatively, if the adoption was not established, to one-half share of such property. He further made a claim against his brother Adenna as manager of the joint property in respect of certain family outstandings alleged to have been collected and misappropriated by the latter.

Adenna and his sons denied the division in status, the adoption of the appellant, and the genuineness of the will, and claimed that they wore entitled to one half of the family property, the other half falling to Subanna and the appellant. Adenna further alleged that he had collected and applied for family purposes the family outstandings.

The appellant and the other defendants all relied upon the alleged division in status, and adoption and will, and in effect supported the case of Subbanna, the plaintiff in the suit.

Before setting out the subsequent history of this litigation, it is necessary to state that Adenna had in 1910, in the name of his son Narasayya, then a minor launched a suit for a partition of the family property on the footing that his son Narasayya had been adopted by Ramanna.

This earlier suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that there had not been any adoption of Narasayya and the judgment was affirmed on appeal.

In his judgment in the earlier suit, the trial Judge, in addition to determining the matter before him, had expressed the opinion that there had been no division in status between Ramanna and his brothers, that the present appellant had not been adopted by Ramanna, and that the alleged will of Ramanna was not a true will, On appeal, however, the appeal Judge hold that these