1. Mr. Hamachandra Aiyar on behalf of the 7th defendant, the appellant before us, contends that the plaintiff is net entitled to the possession of the properties which she claims under an alienation by the 2nd defendant, the appellants father. He argues that the plaintiff is only entitled to bring a suit for partition of all the properties which belong to the family of the 2nd defendant, and if the properties in suit are allotted to the 2nd defendant, she might be entitled to get them or she might be entitled to properties equal in value to the plaint properties out of the properties which might be allotted to the 2nd defendant. In reply it is contended on behalf of the respondent, the plaintiff, that as the 7th defendant, the appellant before us, was made a party only as the representative of the 2nd defendant, it is not open to the 7th defendant to raise any defence which is not appropriate to his representative character under Order XXII, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, and as the 2nd defendant did not and could not raise this plea, it is not open to the 7th defendant to raise this contention. But we are of opinion that it was open to the 2nd defendant himself to raise the