( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He is the only son of the 1st defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are alienees of some of the joint family properties from the 1st defendant. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of a half share. So far as the alienation is concerned, the plaintiff stated that the father, the 1st defendant, was friendly with Veeramma, the mother of defendants 2 and 3, that in order to benefit her, within a few months after the plaintiff s birth, a nominal mortgage, dated 9th December, 1927, was created in favour of her mother, Gangulamma, for a sum of Rs. 600 and that the sale deed, dated 19th June 1933, was executed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 purporting to discharge the mortgage debt. Defendants 2 and 3 contended that both the mortgage deed and the sale deed were binding upon the plaintiff. The District Munsif of Chittoor held that the onus of proving that the alienations made by the 1st defendant are nominal lay upon the plaintiff. He held that Gangulamma was not in a position and had no means to lend the mortgage amount. He also held that as Veeramma was the mistress of the 1st defendant, the mortgage deed was brought int