1. The Subordinate Judge has given excellent reasons, founded on clear documentary and oral evidence for his conclusion that the transfers to the
6th defendant were bynami for the family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, These reasons have not been shown to be incorrect in the argument
before us. We concur in the finding of the Subordinate Judge on this issue. As to the effect of Section 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, with
regard to the plaintiff''s right to maintain the present suit to recover his share of the family property, we observe that the present case is governed
by the decision in ILR 6 M. 135. That case is exactly on all fours with the present case, and has not been overruled or dissented from in the cases
referred to by the appellant''s Vakil {Rama Kurup v. Sridevi ILR 16 M. 290 Sanhunni Nayar v. Narayanan Nambudri ILR 16 M. 209
Kumbalinga Pillai v. Ariyaputra Padiaohi Ib 17 M. 282.
