Madhavan Nair, J.

1. Defendants 1 to 3 (father and two sons) are the appellants. The suit property originally belonged to the 1st defendant and the 4th defendant had a mortgage over it. From the evidence it appears that a portion of it belonged to one Sitayya Naidu, another son of the 1st defendant, but no such distinction has been made in the suit and it is not necessary to refer to it any further. At a revenue sale on 8th May, 1918, the property was purchased by the 4th defendant for Rs. 762 in the name of his clerk. The case of the appellants is that this purchase by the 4th defendant was benami for themselves, the main object of the benami sale being to defeat an anticipated claim for partition from one Ranganayakulu Naidu, the son of the 1st defendants brother. Though the property was sold, admittedly the appellants continued in possession; but according to the 4th defendant it was thenceforward as his tenants whereas the appellants contend that it was because the real title vested in them. Later on, 6 acres out of this property were sold by the 4th defendant to the 1st defendants daughter Chittamma for Rs. 1000. The appellants allege that this sale was for the purpose