KRISHNA RAO, J. :- This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali, dismissing O. S. No. 7 of 1948 a suit for partition and recovery of possession of a half share in 16 items of immoveable properties, which had been alienated by the plaintiffs father. The relationship between the main parties to the suit will be conveniently seen from the following genealogical table :

The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant and was born on 12th January, 1927. The properties were part of the properties acquired for the family by the first defendants senior paternal uncle Panakalu, except item 15 which was purchased by defendants 1 and 2 under Exhibit A-8 dated 4th October, 1926. Panakalu and the first defendants father Gangayya were undivided brothers belonging to the community of weavers and living at Addepalli. Gangayya died first in or about 1898 and Panakalu died issueless about ten years later in October, 1908.

The family properties then devolved on the three sons of Gangayya, viz., one Adisubrahmanyam, the second defendant Venkatalingam and the first defendant Ramalingam. In 1921, they divided the properties and the plaint schedule items 1 to 14 and 16 fell to the share of the first defendant. On 8th July, 1926, the first defendant executed a sale deed Exhibit B-24 conveying items 9 and 10 out of these properties to the seventh defendant who is a stranger to the family. The consideration was the discharge of a promissory note debt of the second defendant amounting to Rs. 1463-11-3 and cash Rs. 736-4-9.

On 11th October, 1926, the first defendant executed a second sale deed Exhibit B-34 conveying all the other plaint schedule items including item 15 to his brother the second defendant. The consideration was the discharge of a number of debts mentioned as payable by the first defendant amounting to Rs. 16,034-10-10 and cash Rs. 765-5-2. Subsequently, there were alienations of various items by defendants 2 and 7 and at the time of the institution of the suit, the only plaint schedule item that remained in the possession of the members of the family was item 16, a terraced house in which the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were residing.

Defendants 3 to 16, 19 and 20 were impleaded as being the ultimate alienees, and defendants 17 and 18 were impleaded because they were the undivided sons of the second defendant. The plaintiffs case was that the sale deeds Exhibits B-24 and B-34 were executed nominally and with false recitals of consideration by the 1st defendant under the influence of the second defendant. On this footing, he sought to ignore both the alienations and to recover his half share together with past and future profits. He instituted the suit on 22nd December, 1947, within three years after attaining majority.

2. The first defendant supported the plaintiffs case, while most of the other defendants including the second defendant contested. Their defence was twofold, firstly that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim a share in the properties as they were the separate property of the first defendant and secondly that first defendants alienations under Exhibits B-24 and B-34 were genuine and binding upon the plaintiff.

On the first question, the case of the contesting defendants was that the plaint schedule properties were part of the self-acquisitions of Panakalu, that Panakalu devised his properties by an unregistered will Exhibit B-9 dated 24th October, 1908, on the first defendant and his brothers, and that the plaint schedule properties which fell to the first defendants share at the partition of 1921 constituted his separate property. It was also alleged by them that the plaintiff was born in 1924 and that the suit was therefore barred by limitation. On the second question, their case was that both the sales were real and were binding upon the plaintiff as they were executed for the discharge of the first defendants debts.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge found again