1. An interesting question of law relating to limitation arises in this second appeal at the instance of the legal representatives of deceased second defendant in the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 and their father Arumugham constituted members of a joint family and the plaint A schedule properties belonged to that family. In 1949 Arumugham died leaving behind him his sons, respondents 1 and 2 and his widow, the third respondent. According to the case of respondents 1 and 2, after the death of Arumugham, their mother, the third respondent, did not look after the family and did not attend to the family affairs, but launched a programme of alienating the family properties. Defendants 2 to 9, according to the plaintiffs, were such alienees and those alienations were not binding on the sons, respondents 1 and 2 herein, who were minors. Respondents 1 and 2 characterised these alienations as void ones and prayed for partition and separate possession after setting aside the alienations in favour of the defendants. Though there were several alienations which were so challenged by respondents 1 and 2 in the suit, what survives in this second appeal is only the alienation in favour of