VEERASWAMI, J. :- The appellants sued for recovery of the properties covered by B schedule to the plaint on a claim, that the sale thereof by their mother on 25th June 1943, was not for necessity or for the benefit of the estate and, therefore, not binding on them. The suit was resisted by defendants 1 to 3 (respondents 1 to 3) of whom the first is the son of Krishnayya Naidu in whose favour the sale was executed, the second and the third are his wife and undivided brother respectively, asserting that the sale was supported by necessity and was beneficial to the estate and that the suit was also barred by limitation. The Court below accepted the defence on those points and dismissed the suit. The fourth respondent who is a brother of the appellants was impleaded as a defendant as according to them he would not co-operate with them.

2. The main point argued before us on behalf of the appellants is whether the sale in favour of Krishnayya Naidu was supported by necessity or it was for the benefit of the Estate. Chengalvaraya Naidu, the father of the appellants, had executed a usufructuary mortgage on 26th May 1941, over the said properties securing repayment of a sum of Rs. 3