1. The second defendant, one of the three judgment-debtors, is the appellant before this Court. This appeal has arisen out of an execution petition put in by the decree-holder. The facts are a little complicated, and though it is not necessary to retail all the facts, it is necessary to set out the following for understanding the contentions on both sides:

2. The decree in this case was passed so long ago as March 1898 in favour of one Arunachallam Chettiyar. There were several execution petitions by the said decree-holder himself. The decree is then alleged to have fallen, in a partition between two members of the decree holders family and a partner of the family firm, to the share of the said partner who also held a power of attorney from the decree-holder. This partner filed execution petitions in 1905 and 1907. Finally on the 21st April 1909, Execution Petition No. 389 of 1909 was filed by a next friend on behalf of the minor son of the said partner after the death of the latter.

3. We must here state that the decree was passed by the District Mansifti Oourt of Srivilliputtur and all these applications including the Execution Petition No. 38 of 1909 of 21st April 1909 war