Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The defendants are the appellants. The facts of the case are very simple and may be briefly stated. The suit property belonged to one Subbaraya Padayachi. His wife predeceased him. He had only a minor son Pavadai by name. On 26th November 1918 Subbaraya Padayachi executed a will Ex. B. His son died in 1914 and he himself died in July 1916. The suit property was sold to the plaintiff under Ex. A by Anjalai Ammal who is a sister of Subbaraya Padayachi. The plaintiffs case is that under the will the property came to Anjalai Ammal and since he purchased the same from her he is now entitled to it. In other words, his title to the suit property is based upon Exs. A and B. The defendants are people in possession of the suit property and they say that they obtained the property under an oral gift from Subbaraya Padayachi. This oral gift has been found against by both the lower Courts. After the death of his son, under Ex. 1 some of the properties included in the will were gifted to one Thangaswami, a relation, by Subbaraya Padayachi while some others were sold by him to his sister Anjalai Ammal under Ex. 2. The suit property did not fall either within Ex. 1 or E