( 1 ) THE result of this appeal will depend upon the answer we give to the question whether the alienations made by the 1st defendant, the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 ; 2, 3 and 4 being minors ; represented by the next friend, the 1st plaintiff, were intended to benefit the joint family of which the Ist defendant and the plaintiffs were undivided members.

( 2 ) IN this appeal, we are only concerned with the alienations made by the 1st defendant under Ex. B-28 dated 10. 2. 1954 in favour of the 2nd defendant and under Ex. B-12 dated 7. 2. 1954 in favour of the 16th defendant, and the alienations covered by Ex. B-14 dated 22. 2. 1954 in favour of the 16th defendant and under Ex. B-32 dated 19. 2. 1954 in favour of the 15th defendant.

( 3 ) WE may state at the outset that neither the 1st plaintiff the major son of the 1st defendant nor the 1st defendant nor the mother of the plaintiffs has gone into the witness box to rebut the evidence adduced by the defendants 2, 5, 6, 25 and 26.

( 4 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are these :- The plaintiffs are the sons of the 1st defendant and they were residents of Pachala Tadiparru, a village in Bapatla Taluk. They own