King, J.

1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by a son (plaintiff l) against his father (defendant 1) for partition. There are other parties of lesser importance, plaintiff ls minor son (plaintiff 2), and minor sister (plaintiff 3) and various alienees from defendant 1 (defendant 2 to 5), but it will be convenient for the purposes of this judgment to refer the son and father as plaintiff and defendant simply. The plaintiff has obtained a decree from Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J. and defendant appeals. The question at issue in the appeal is whether the property in suit which, subject She setting aside of alienations, is valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 9,000, is joint family property or the self-acquired property of the defendant. It is common ground that the defendant did not sue-oft to any ancestral property, and that the first item of property which he acquired was a house site in the name of his wife Rangammal in 1897 for which he paid Rs. 150. At that time defendants father was dead, and defendant was one of three brothers. Plaintiff was not yet born. In March 1898 the three brothers executed a partition deed, as result of which defendant retained this house site after pay