Curgenven, J.

1. Of these two appeals from judgments of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput it will be sufficient to deal in extenso with A. S. No. 74 of 1922, as the decision in A. S. No. 45 of 1923 will follow from the findings reached in the former appeal.

2. The following table shows the family relationship of the person to whom this appeal relates:

THANIKACHALA

______________|___________________

| | |

1st wife=Thiyagaraja=2nd Appadural Raju

| wife Defen- |

| dent No.2-5 Kuppusami

_______|___________ |

| | |

Defendent Defendent |

No.-2 No.-2 |

_______________|_____________

| | |

Defendent Defendent Plantiff

No.-3 No.-4

3. Thanikachala was by profession--the family profession--a toddy contractor, and acquired a certain amount of property. He was thrice married, and by each wife had one son. In 1891 he made a will favouring his third wife (then alone surviving) and her son Raju at the expense of his two elder sons, Thyagaraja and Appadurai, who quarrelled with him and left home. Thanikachala died in 1896 or 1897, and on 17th February 1897 the three sons executed and registered a partition deed (Ex. A) which embraced not only Thanikachalas property but certain other items, which were the s