Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.

1. These are three linked appeals, namely, Appeal No. 411 of 1925, Appeal No. 439 of 1925 and Appeal No. 6 of 1926. Of these, Appeal No. 439 of 1925 was argued first as in that the main and the most important contentions between the parties had to be considered, I propose in my judgment to deal with all the three appeals together.

2. All these appeals arise out of O.S. No. 67 of 1919 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. That was a suit for partition. The parties to the suit were all members of an undivided Hindu family related to one another in the manner set out in schedule A to the plaint. The Hindu family was possessed of considerable immovable property and in the partition suit the plaintiff claimed a half share in the whole property. The plaintiff stands by himself representing one branch of the family. The genealogical table (schedule A) shows that all the parties to the suit trace their descent back to one Sepperumal Odayar; and in the judgment of my learned brother Curgenven, J., the genealogical table has been described in detail and therefore it is unnecessary for me to explain any further he w the parties stand in r