S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. This appeal has to be allowed on legal point taken before me. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this appeal, is the son of one Rajamanicka who died in March, 1960. The first defendant is his widow as well as the mother of the plaintiff. Impeaching a sale dated 2.8.1961, marked in the case as Exhibit B-4, effected by the first defendant for herself and on behalf of the plaintiff, who was then a minor, in favour of the second defendant, who was the younger brother of Rajamanicka, the plaintiff laid the suit for partition, and separate possession of his three-fourth share in the suit properties. The first defendant remained ex-parte. The substance of the defence of the second defendant, who died pending the suit and whose legal representatives were brought on record in the suit itself, was that the sale was for binding necessities. The Court below did not countenance the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit and that is how the plaintiff is before this Court by way of this appeal.

2. There is no need to investigate as to whether the sale was not for binding necessities and was tainted with vitiating circumstances as contended by the plaintif