A purchaser in a court sale of a specific property belonging to the joint family held in execution of a decree obtained against one of the members of the joint family is entitled to ask for equitable relief in a suit for general partition that the property purchased by him should, if possible, be allotted to the share of his judgment-debtor.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla giving the plaintiffs 2/9th share in the plaint A schedule properties. To appreciate the facts and the contentions of the parties, the following two genealogies may be useful.

( 2 ) THE two families lived together as members of a composite family. The two families have equal shares in the B schedule property. Ramayya of the molakalapalli family executed a will Exhibit B-1 on gth October, 1913, whereunder he bequeathed half of his share, i. e. , 1/4 of the entire estate to Chunduri Kotayya, husband of the 5th defendant, absolutely and the other half to his wife s brother, konka Kondayya. He specifically directed that his maternal uncle, China Subbayya who had been managing the properties during the life-time of his father and during his life-time, should continue to manage after his death also. After his death, his widow Eswaramma filed O. S. No. 9 of 1917 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s court, Guntur, against all the members of the composite family to enforce her rights under the will. Pending the suit, Eswaramma died. Thereafter, the dispute was settled and a compromise decree was made in the suit. Under the terms of the compromise, the 1/4th share of Konka Kondayya, brother of Eswaramma, in the joint properties was recognised and the same was sold to the 2nd defendant under Exhibit B-7, dated nth September, 1919. The 1st defendant obtained a money decree against defendants 2 to 4 in O. S. No. 443 of 1943 on the file of the district Munsif s Court, Ongole. In execution of that decree, when he sought to proceed against the suit properties, defendants 6 and 17 filed claim petitions and the ist defendant conceded their claim to 2/3 interest in the properties and their claims were allowed. Subsequently, one Chalavadi Venkata Subbamma obtained a money decree against the 2nd defendant and his sons defendants 3 and 4 in O. S. No. 102 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Ongole. In execution of that decree 34 acres in S. No. 73 of the total extent of 43 acres 40 cents were brought to sale and purchased by the 1st plaintiff on 4th July, 1947, for a sum of Rs. 10,350. The plaintiffs case is that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the 1st defendant contributed equally for the purchase of the suit properties, that the 1st plaintiff bid at the auction on behalf of all the three, that the 2nd plaintiff took possession of same on 29th October, 1947 and that defendants 5 to 15 in collusion with defendants 2 to 4 trespassed upon the suit lands. On those allegations, they filed the aforesaid suit for possession of the 34 acres purchased by them.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 5 to 7 ,filed written statements, inter alia, contending that the 2nd defendant purchased the property from Kondayya on behalf of the composite family, that there was no division by metes and bounds in the composite family and that defendants 2 to 4 are entitled only to 2/9 share in the properties of the composite family, and, therefore, the plaintiffs would be entitled only to the right, title and interest of their judgment-debtors. In view of the allegations made by the defendants, the plaintiffs amended their plaint by adding paragraph 6 (a) praying for partition of the 5/12th share pertaining to defendants 2 to 4 in the plaint B schedule properties and for allotting the a schedule properties to the share of defendants 2 to 4. On those allegations, the parties went to trial. The learned Subordinate Judge held, on the evidence, that the 2nd defendant purchased the 1/4th share on behalf of the entire composite family, that there was a partition in the family in the year 1939 and that defendants 2 to 4 were only entitled to 2/9th share in the property. He passed a preliminary decree for division of the plaint A schedule properties into 9 shares and two of the shares in the southern-most portion of the lands were allotted toward