Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. For a proper understanding, of the contentions raised, it is necessary first to follow closely thq pedigree given below and Secondly to glance at some of the main conclusions arrived at the previous stages pithis unfortunate and protracted litigation.

(1) SEPPURUMAL ODAYAR. | ___________________________________________________________________ | | | (2) Sinnu Odayar (3) Subramania Odayar (4) Ramu Odayar (died) | | | (5)Sendalangara ____________________ (11) Samu Odayar (died) | | | (8) Kuppu (9) Muthu | | Odayar Odayar | | (died) (died) | (6)Adopted son | | | Sivavadivelu (10) Balasubra- No issue. | Odayar mania Odayar. | (died) | | | (7)Ramabhadra | Odayar (Plaintiff). | ___________________________________________________________________ | | | | | (12) Ayyadurai (13) Singara (14) Sivaswami (15) Sivavadi- (16) Gopala- Odayar (died) velu Odayar Odayar (died) velu Odayar swami | (died) Odayar | adopted by (Deft. 1) | No. 5. | (25) Widow (26) Vijaya- Purnananthachi raghunatha ____________________ (Deft. 9). Odayar | | (Deft. 2). (17) Bala (18) Bala guruswami krishna Odayar Odayar (Deft. 3) (Deft. 4) | | | (22) Ayyadurai | (Deft. 8). ________________________________ | | | (19)Ven (20) Swami (21) Male kata- nathan child raman (Deft. 6) (Deft. 7). (Deft. 5). (adopted by Singaravelu Odayar). ______________________________ | | (23)Somasundara Odayar V (20) Adopted son (died) Swaminathan | (Deft. 6). (24)Widow Gowri Achi (Deft. 10).

2. It will be well to mention at the outset that when the present partition suit (out of which these appeals including the memoranda of objections arise) was commenced two decades back, the family with which we are concerned was possessed of considerable wealth; but its position has during the pendency of this litigation so declined, that its members, all but the sixth defendant, have either been obliged to be adjudicated insolvents or to enter into arrangements with their creditors. The result is, that the parties, excepting the sixth defendant (the appellant) who is still solvent, have ceased to possess any personal interest, the rights of the plaintiff and the third defendant having passed to the Official Receiver of West Tanjore, of the fourth defendant, to the Official Assignee of Madras, and of defendants 1 and 2, to trustees appointed under a composition deed. They have all been brought on the record, but it will be convenient to this judgment to refer to the original parties and not to their representatives.

3. From the pedigree above, it will be seen that the family consisted of three main branches: those of Sinnu, Subramania and Ramu. In 1895 an arrangement was entered into (by means of a deed marked Ex. A) consequent upon certain disputes that arose in the family. Balasubramania (No. 10 in the pedigree) separated from the remainder of the family, his share having been ascertained and allotted to him. It was agreed that the other members should continue to live jointly, their shares, however, having been defined on a basis agreed to by the parties, widely different however, from those they would be entitled to, under the law. One of the disputes that was set at rest by the deed, related to the status of Sivavadivelu (No. 6 in the pedigree) the plaintiffs father. He claimed to be the adopted son of Sendalangara and under the family arrangement that claim was recognised; but his share was fixed (and this is important) as though there had been no adoption and he continued to occupy his natural place in the family as Samu Odayars son.

4. Then the next event of importance happened in the year 1917, when Singaravelu (No. 13 in the pedigree) probably the most prominent member of the family then, adopted Swaminatha (the 6th defendant and the appellant before us) the natural born son of Balaguruswami. But for this adoption, as the pedigree will show, Singaravelus branch would upon his death become extinct and its effect therefore would be to diminish the quantum of the share of