Curgenven, J.

1. The plaintiff, who now prefers this second appeal, sued to recover a sum of Rs. 3,032-13-3 from the assets of one Srinivasachari, making his widow, the defendant, in the following circumstances. Srinivasacharis father, of the same name, whom we may refer to as Srinivasachari senior, bequeathed the plaint-property to his daughter Kuttiammal under a Will. With a view to dispute this bequest, Srinivasachari junior sold the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,000. In 1912 the plaintiff sued for possession making Srinivasachari seniors children as well as certain lessees, parties. Srinivasachari junior raised the defence that the sale-deed was nominal and unsupported by consideration while Kuttiammal, besides advancing this plea (which it was not open to her to do) pleaded the validity of the bequest., The District Munsif found against both these pleas and gave the plaintiff a decree for Srinivasachari juniors half share (there being another brother). Against this decision, Kuttiammal and Pattrachariar appealed, and the appellate Court held that the bequest was good and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

2. In second appeal this decision was confirmed. The plaintiff t