(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for Respondent 3 who is the only contesting party. In our view, this is a fit case in which this court should interfere in the interest of justice. A few relevant facts for highlighting the aforesaid conclusion of ours are required to be noted.

(3) THE appellant and Respondent l are brothers. It is not in dispute that there were agricultural lands in which the appellant and Respondent l and his another brother had l/3rd undivided share each. The undivided l/3rd shares of Respondent l as well as his brother were sold to one Chandramohini Devi. Thereafter, the present appellant as well as his brother, Respondent l along with the third brother were sued by the said purchaser in a Regular Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1954 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara. The plaintiff wanted her 2/3rds share to be separated. The remaining 1/3rd share belonged to the present appellant, the third brotheR.There were other parties joined in the suit being Defendants 4 to 10 with whom we are not concerned as ultimately in the suit, the trial court passed the decree in the