In the case of a Hindu joint family, a suit to set aside an alienation filed by the younger of two brothers within three years of his attaining majority would be barred by limitation if the elder brother, who was the manager of the family, had failed to sue within three years of his attaining majority.

( 1 ) OUR learned brother Satyanarayana Rao, J. , directed that this appeal should be posted before a Bench as it involves what he considered to be an important question of law.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the appellants who are the sons of late Jandhyala Satyanarayana to set aside certain alienations made by him as not binding on them. The trial Court found that the alienations are not binding on the plaintiffs but dismissed their suit as barred by time since it was filed more than 3 years after the 1st plaintiff the eldest brother, had attained majority. The learned advocate for the appellants raises the contention that even if the 1st plaintiff is barred, the other plaintiffs who are still minors are not barred. Our learned brother thought that the question deserved examination by a Bench.

( 3 ) BEFORE we go into the question of law thus raised, we may at the outset dispose of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in regard to the lower Court s finding of fact that the suit was not filed within 3 years of the 1st plaintiff s attainment of majority. The plaint case is that that 1st plaintiff was born on 9th September, 1926. In proof of this fact, reliance was placed on Exhibit a-6, a certified copy of an extract from the birth register relating to the birth of the 1st plaintiff and Exhibit A-2 which is a portion of a rough note-book alleged to contain the 1st plaintiff s horoscope.

( 4 ) NOW, columns 2 and 3 of Exhibit A-6 are headed date of registration and date of birth . The date 9th September, 1926, appears under column 2 while there is no date at all under column 3. Again, the name of the child is given as Srirama Sarma while the plaint describes the 1st p aintiff as Srirama Sarma alias Subbarao. The learned Subordinate Judge held that as the column intended for the date of the birth is blank, the document serves no useful purpose. It was contended for the plaintiffs in the lower Court that the Village Munsif, who was maintaining the register of births of which Exhibit A-6 was an extract, was in the habit of not filling the column intended for the date of birth but filling up only the column entitled date of registration and in the circumstances the entry should be treated as relating to the date of birth and not to the date of registration. The learned Subordinate judge could not of course accept such an argument and rightly rejected it. An attempt was made in the lower Court to call for the complete register containing the entry Exhibit A-6. But the learned Subordinate Judge declined to send for it. An application was made to our learned brother for its production as additional evidence and he having acceded to it, the register is now before us. We are however satisfied that the register throws no additional light. We notice however, one curious feature. Until the date of 14th August, 1926, the register has only one column entitled date and naturally because it is a register of births, the date must refer to the date of birth . But after 14th August, 1926, a line is drawn splitting column 3 into two, making it columns 3 and 4 and renumbering the following columns accordingly. The former column 2 is headed date of registration and the new column 3 is headed date of birth . The entry now in question appears on the page on which this procedure was adopted. But curiously enough the new procedure was followed only from 14th August, 1926 to 29th August, 1926 and apparently never since. Even after the new procedure was given up, the remaining dates that occurs on that page are all only in column 2 while no dates appear under the new column 3. There are five such single entries on that page. In no case does the date appearing under the date of registration extend into the next column so that while no dates appear under the date of birth all these five dates are only inserted in the column headed date of registration . It is just possible that the division into these two colu