1. Roya Kuppa Chetti, the first defendant to the suit out of which this second appeal arises, and Krishnaswami Chetti (the second defendant), his grandson born of his deceased son, were members of a Joint Hindu family. Krishnaswami Chetti, still a minor, is under the care and protection of his mother Sundarammal, who has been impleaded as the 3rd defendant in the suit. Both of them are living in the house, which is the subject matter of this litigation. Roya Kuppa Chetti however did not take to them kindly; it has been found that his attitude towards his grandson was hostile. Being thus obliged by circumstances, the mother of the minor acting on his behalf, issued a notice on 22/12/1953, to his grandfather unequivocally expressing an intention to separate from the family and demanding partition. There was no response to the demand. Instead Roya Kuppa Chetti sold on 01/02/1954 the suit property to the plaintiff purporting to do so on behalf of the joint family consisting of himself and minor Krishnaswami Chetti; the alienation was stated to be for discharging certain liabilities of the family but both the courts below have found that the debts were not genuine.
The alienee relying on