C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal raises a short but interesting question of Hindu Law. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and to allot one such share to him after ejecting the defendants therefrom and to award future profits on his share. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The first defendant is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. They originally constituted a Hindu joint family of which the first defendant was the Kartha. The 5th defendant is the alienee of the plaint schedule property under a sale deed dated 3-11-1963 executed by the first defendant. The sale deed was preceded by an agreement of sale dated 15-5-1963 executed by the first defendant in favour of the 5th defendant. After the said agreement of sale but before the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff issued a notice to defendants 1 to 5 on 25-7-1963 demanding partition to which a reply was sent on behalf of defendants 1 to 5 on 3-8-1963 asserting that the agreement of sale dated 15-5-1963 was executed by the first defendant for legal necessity and family benefit, that the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document