Miller, J.

1. The first and the third plaintiffs are transferees from one Chakrapani Chetty. The Subordinate Judge has held that the transfer deed conveyed nothing to them and on that ground the suit cannot be maintained. No other question has been decided. According to the transfer deed, a partition was made by the transferor of his property between himself and his sons on the 25th January 1908. As a part of that partition, the accounts of some silk and cloth business which were managed on his behalf by two of his sons were rendered by those sons and these were taken into account in making the partition. Subsequently, he has discovered, so he recites in the deed, that certain sums due to the firm, some out-standing debts, amounting to more than Rs. 10,000, were fraudulently concealed and omitted by the two sons from the accounts of the business and he proceeds to transfer to the two plaintiffs the said sums, which were fraudulently omitted of Rs. 10,000, and such other amount as may be found to have been omitted from the account, and which may be recoverable either from the two sons, the agents themselves, or from the debtors owing them to the firm. The Subordinate Judge sa