1. Admittedly the minor plaintiff, the son of the 2nd defendant was not born in 1881 when the mortgage which is now impeached was executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The last male owner was Venkatachalam. The 1st defendant is the mother of Venkatachalam and the 2nd defendant besides being-the brother of 1st defendant married the sister of Venkatachalam. He was the nearest male heir on the death of Venkatachalam and had been for many years living in coparcenary with Venkatachalam and managing his affairs and the affairs of the family After the death of Venkatachalam, he continued to manage the affairs of the family, and the patta for the lands was transferred to his name jointly with the mother. It seems to us that the conveyance by the mother who only had a life estate with the consent of the immediate reversioner conveyed an absolute estate, and that it cannot be questioned by the plaintiff, who was born subsequent to the conveyance, even though he might, as sister's son, be entitled on the death of the 1st defendant to succeed in preference to his father the maternal uncle. Moreover the judge has found, and we think rightly, that Venkatachalam treated the 2nd defendant as a coparcener and that his position in the family has been such as to lead the public to think that he had as much right to the property as Venkatachalam himself. Under these circumstances 2nd defendant's alienation of the property after the death of Venkatachalam cannot be questioned by his son, who, the judge finds, has been put forward by his father to cheat the alienees who took bond fide. We reverse the decree of the Lower Court so far as appellants are concerned and dismiss the suit as against them with costs. The memorandum of objections is not pressed and is dismissed with costs.