Phillips, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff is the son of one Sambasiva Ayyar, the adopted son of one Sivaramma Ayyar, and he sues to recover possession of certain properties, sold by his grandfather, Sivaramma Ayyar on the 29th of June 1901 to the 1st defendant who is the father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that the sale was not effected for any necessity and is not binding on him. The plaintiffs father and grandfather are now both dead and, therefore, the plaintiff claims to recover the whole of the suit properties.

2. The Subordinate Judge has found that there was no necessity for the sale and that it is, therefore, not binding on the plaintiffs share and he has given a decree to the plaintiff for a division of the property into two parts and for recovery of possession by the plaintiff of one-half with mesne profits from the date of the sale. The defendants now appeal and state that the decree is wrong and that the plaintiffs suit should have been dismissed on the ground that the first defendant acquired a right by the sale in his alienors share of the family property and that he is in equity entitled to recover property not greater in value than his alienors sha