1. The 2nd defendant, one of the three judgment debtors, is the appellant before the 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 detail 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 Chettiar. 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 partners of a family firm to the share of one 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, E.P. 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 Munsifs court of Sriviliputtur and all these applications including the E.P. No. 389 of 1909 of 21st April 1909 were instituted in that court. On this applica