1. The father of the plaintiff obtained a decree against the 5th defendant and in execution thereof brought to sale and purchased the 5th defendants one-fifth share in the two suit villages. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which these appeals arise sued for partition and for possession of the 5th defendants one-fifth share in the said villages.

2. Balakrishnamma, adoptive father of the 2nd defendant, and defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were members of an undivided family. In 187s they effected a partition. The bulk of the family property was divided by metes and bounds, but the suit villages and some other Immovable property were kept undivided for convenience of enjoyment and were held by the divided members as tenants in common though the actual management was vested in Balakrishnamma who was to pay to each of the tenants in common his share of the income. In January 1893, Balakrishnamma died, and the management was thereafter with the first defendant.

2. Two of the issues framed in the suit were :--Whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether the suit was bad as being a suit for partial partition. The Court found both these issues in the negative and gave a decree f