Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The two appellants were the second and the third defendants in the Court below. The appeal was filed by the first appellant, but as he did not press it the third respondent was made a co-appellant, and he has alone supported it. The suit was filed by the first respondent, who is the father of the second respondent, for partition of the family properties. The first defendant was the father of the appellants and the first respondent, but he died during the pendency of the litigation. The suit was filed on the 1st September, 1919 and on the 31st December, 1926, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the first respondent. The final decree was passed on the 31st March, 1931, and the appeal is concerned with this decree.

2. The first question which arises relates to the provision to be made for the marriage of the sister of the appellants and the first and fourth respondents, the 37th defendant. The learned trial Judge has held that the expenses of this marriage should be borne by the appellants and their brother, the fourth respondent. After the first respondent separated from the family, the family consisted of the father, the appellants a