Ramesam, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff to recover certain properties purported to have been sold by his guardian on 20th March 1919 under Ex. 1 for Rs. 800 to defendants 1 to 3 and 10. Defendants 4 to 9 are members of. an undivided family along with defendants 1 to 3, and defendants 11 to 13 form one undivided family with defendant 10. The District Munsif found that the sale was not binding upon the plaintiff and gave a decree. On appeal the Subordinate Judge differing from the District Munsif found that the sale dead was executed for necessity and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff files this second appeal.

2. In second appeal plaintiffs advocate Mr. Jagannadha Das argues that there is no legal evidence in support of the necessity relied on by the defendants. But before I discuss this question it will be convenient to dispose of another point raised by Mr. Sambasiva Rao the learned advocate for the respondents as it arises first; in logical order; it is that the suit is barred by limitation. This point was raised by issue 1. Both the lower Courts have found that the plaintiffs suit was brought more than three years after he attaine