JUDGMENT:- The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit in forma pauperis for partition and separate Possession of his half share in plaint B schedule properties and for setting aside the various transfers and alienations in favour of defendants 3 to 18. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers, being sons of one Pichu Iyer. The second defendant is the widow of Pichu Iyer and the mother of the plaintiff. Defendants 3 to 18 are the alienees of the major portion of the suit properties. The alienations were by the mother on behalf of the plaintiff and the first defendant, and some of them were by the first defendant himself. The case of the plaintiff was that these sales were not for legal necessity and that therefore they were not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants contended that the sales effected in their favour were true, valid and for legal necessity and therefore binding on the plaintiff. They also contended that the suit was barred by limitation as it had not been filed within three years of the attainment of majority by the first defendant. The trial court gave the finding that the sales effected in favour of defendants 3 to 18 were not binding on