1. Two points have been argued before us in this appeal, firstly, that the decision of the learned Judge that the partition was effected by the razi decree Ex. B dated 16th November 1914 is incorrect and secondly, that even assuming it to be correct the share of the plaintiffs in the family property was not liable to be sold in execution proceedings obtained against their father, defendant 3. The father of the plaintiffs executed a pronote dated 14th September 1914. The creditor defendant 1 brought a suit upon the pronote, obtain-ad a decree and in execution of that decree purchased the property in the name of his father, defendant 2, on 12th February 1919. The argument addressed to us is that the date of the partition should be regarded as the date on which the sons (plaintiffs) brought O.S. No. 65 of 1912 on the file of the Principal District Mutisifs Court of Srivilliputtur which became O.S. No. 77 of 1914 on the file of the Additional District Munsif. No doubt the filing of a partition suit even on behalf of minor sons amounts to a partition., and the Court of first instance in the present suit has referred to this suit as one for a fresh partition. This is not, however