A suit for ejectment could be regarded as one for partition if the plaintiff was found entitled to it even in the absence of a alternative claim.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the preliminary decree of the Subordinate judge Narasaraopet in O. S. No. 7 2 of 1953. The 1st defendant is the appellant. It arises our of an action laid by the respondent herein for recovering the properties in question for avoiding the alienations made by the 1st defendant and for an account of the management of the properties by the 1st defendant.

( 2 ) THE facts material for the purpose of this appeal are briefly these. One Pendyala Narasimham had four sons by name Venkayya, Ramalingam, Punnaiah and Satyanarayana. The first of the sons pre-deceased his father. Narasiham died in 1928 leaving behind him three sons Ramalinga, Punnaiah and Satyanarayana. Ramalingam died in 1930 survived by his widow, Anantamma. His younger brothers died in 1934 and 1935 respectively issueless. In 1952, the widow of Ramalingam adopted the plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, the adopted boy required the 1st defendant by registered notice to deliver possession of all the properties belonging to his adoptive father and to render him an account of the management by the 1st defendant. As this demand was not complied with, the action giving rise to this appeal was laid.

( 3 ) THE genealogical table given hereunder will be helpful in understanding the relationship of the parties.

( 4 ) THE chief averments in the plaint are these. At the time of the death of Narasimham, his three sons were young and inexperienced and consequently Perisetti the father of the 1st defendant, was brought into the family to look after its affairs on the understanding that he would be given something for his services. On the death of Perisetti, his son, the 1st defendant assumed management in 1938. The 1st defendant took full advantage of the situation, viz. , that there was none in the family who was literate. He sold several items of properties of the family with a view to enrich himself and these alienations would not be effective as against the plaintiff. The 1st defendant was also called upon to render an account of his management.

( 5 ) TO this suit were impleaded the alienees as defendants 2 to 56.

( 6 ) THE claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the 1st defendant on the defences that he was not a stranger to the family, that his father and Narasimham constituted members of a joint Hindu family, to which the properties in dispute belonged and consequently all the properties survived to him on the demise of the sons of Narasimham, that the plaintiffs adoption, even If true, was not valid since the 1st defendant or his sons the only reversioners to the estate, did not give their consent to it, that the assent of persons who were not in any way related to the family was of no consequence, that in any event the alienations prior to the plaintiffs adoption could not be impugned and that there was no liability on his part to account for his management before 1952. It is unnecessary to refer to the written statements of the other defendants as the alienations in their favour are not in issue in this appeal.

( 7 ) THE trial Court found that the plaintiffs adoption was valid, that late Narasimham and Perisetti constituted a joint family, that the properties, the subject-matter of the suit, belonged to the family and as such both were entitled to an equal share therein, that the plaintiff could not question the transfers effected by the 1st defendant before the adoption and that since there was no proof of any mismanagement by the 1st defendant, he was not liable to render an account of his management prior to the suit. In the result he has passed a preliminary decree for partition of the properties and allotment of one share to the plaintiff. He also directed that mesne proms should be enquired into in the final decree proceedings. Both the 1st defendant and the plaintiff brought appeals against that judgment as both of them were dissatisfied with it.

( 8 ) IN the main appeal filed by the 1st defendant, the decree is assailed en t