Reilly, J.

1. The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of his suit for partition by the Subordinate Judge, The suit relates to a family of which the common ancestor, as is now not disputed, was Kanchiraju. He was great grandfather of the plaintiff and great-great-grandfather of defendant No. 1. At the trial it was denied by defendant No. 1, or rather by defendant No. 2 as defendant No. 1, his father, died a few days after the suit was instituted, that the plaintiff and his two brothers defendants Nos. 5 and 6 belonged to the family at all. The plaintiffs case is that his father, Suryanarayana, was adopted by Krishnayya I, the son of Kanchiraju I. The Sub-ordinate Judge has found in favour of the ] adoption, and that is not now disputed: "before us. .

2. It is denied in defendant No. 1s written statement that the property concerned is joint family property at all, and it is alleged that it was acquired by defendant No. 1s grandfather Kanchiraju II. But it appears from Ex. A a statement by defendant No. 1s father, Venkayya, at an inam enquiry in 1854, that the family was joint at that time. If that statement is read with the genealogy attached to it, I do not think it is pos