This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated 24th January, 1944, of the High Court of Madras, which reversed the Judgment and decree, date December 17, 1941, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Rajahmundry.

This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the first respondent for partition of the plaint properties and for the recovery of a share therein, after setting aside certain alienations made in respect of them by his father, the second respondent, The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding the alienations to be binding on the first respondent. The High Court reversed his decision. The main question in this appeal is therefore whether or not the alienations in question are valid and binding on the first respondent.

The facts of the case are as follows:

The respondents are members of a Hindu joint family. The second respondent (defendant 1) is the father, and the first and third respondents (plaintiff and defendant 2 respectively) are the sons. The family became indebted and the second respondent, as father and manager of the family, made certain alienations to which the other respondents were parties. The first respondent, however was a minor at the time and was represented in those transactions by his father as his guardian. The alienations were made to pay antecedent debts and they would under Hindu aw be binding on the sons unless it was proved that the debts were incurred by the father for illegal or immoral purposes. An attempt was made to prove this but the first respondent did not succeed in establishing it His main contention, however, was that the father had become divided from his sons at the dates of the alienations, because previously thereto, he had executed a deed of settlement in respect of the disputed properties in favour of his mother, which in substance was a deed of partition effecting a disruption of the joint family.

The second respondent’s father, Venkata Reddi, died in 1907, leaving his widow Seethamma and his only son the second respondent. He left some immoveable property. J. he second respondent was the only member of the family until the birth of the third respondent in 1908. The second respondent incurred certain debts and made certain alienations by way of mortgages and sales.

On June 3, 1914, the second respondent executed a document called a settle pent deed in favour of his mother, giving her a life interest in the land mentioned in the document for her maintenance, with a stipulation that after her death the land was to revert to the family.

The material portion of the document is as follows:

“As you are my mother and therefore I am bound to protect” (“maintain” as translated by the Trial Court) “you the properties worth about ten thousand rupees..... belonging to me ..... have been given away this day to you who are my mother and put in your possession. You shall therefore henceforth safeguard the said properties. Out of the debts contacted by me from others for the expenses of my family, the debt (specified in the document) shall be discharged by you..... you sahll as you please enjoy the said properties during your whole lifetime without subjecting the same to alienation and subject to the aforesaid conditions. It is settled that after your lifetime the said property should again pass to my family.”

The main question in this appeal is whether this document is, as it purports to be, a maintenance deed in favour of the mother, or whether it effects a separation of the second respondent from his sons, the first and third respondents, and whether by reason of this deed the property ceased to be the property of the" joint family consisting of respondents 1 to 3.

The first respondent was born in 1917. Subsequently, in 1918, the second respondent applied to the Court to be adjudicated an insolvent.

On January 8, 1919, the mother of the first respondent, acting as guardian, brought suit No. 6 of 1919 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Coconada against th