ORDER :

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.:— Before we finally dispose of these appeals, it is necessary to get the authoritative decision of a Full Bench on a question on which there is divergence of judicial opinion.

2. In Dakshinamurthi v. Sitharamayya1 a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Umamaheswaram and Mohd. Ahmed Ansari, JJ., held that an alienee from an alienee of a specific item of property from an undivided member of a joint Hindu family, is entitled to work out the equity in a suit for partition and have the property allotted to the share of the alienating coparcener. The basis of this decision is that the right of an alienee to the equity is a right in personam and is heritable and transferable.

3. A contrary view was taken in two Bench decisions of the Madras High Court, Viz., Dhadha Sahib v. Muhammad Sultan Sahib2 and Sabapathi Pillay v. Thandavaraya Odayar.3 In Dhadha Sahib v. Muhammad Sultan Sahib,2 which deals with very much the same question as in Sabapathi Pillay v. Thandavaraya Odayar3, the learned Judges Abdur Rahim and Oldfield, JJ. observed that even though a vendee of specific lands from a coparcener of a Hindu family, may be entitled to recover lands of equa