Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. In this suit a very large amount is involved but otherwise this is a typical case. In form the suit is for partition of family property but in truth it is an attepmt by a son with the aid of his father to recover for his family the properties alienated by the latter. The following pedigree explains the relationship of the parties:

Veeraperumal Pillai

__________________________|__________________

| | |

Thiruvengadathan Doraisani Rajagopala Pillai Ammi Pillai |

P.Appasami Pillai= |

Nagathammal. |

______________________|______________

| | | |

Muthusami Shrinivasa P.M. Appasami Nagath-

| Pillai ammal.

|__________________

_______________________|_________________

| |

P. Veeraperumal Pillai P. Sethuram (1st defendant. Pillai.

Rajagopala Pillai,

plaintiff).

2. The plaintiff Rajagopala Pillai is a minor who sues by his next friend. Defendant 1, his father, became an insolvent and his estate is now represented by defendant 5, the Official Assignee of Madras. No relief is sought against defendant 2, who has not appeared to defend the suit and the really contesting defendants are the third and the fourth. Defendant 3 holds a mortgage for Rs. 2,50,000 and defendant 4 for about Rs