( 1 ) BOTH the appeals are preferred against the same judgment and decree dated 4-6-1987 passed by the learned Additional civil Judge, Dharwad in O. S No. 113 of 1978. R. F. A. (F R.) No. 9060/87 is filed by the 1st defendant and RFA. No. 582/87 is filed by plaintiffs 1 and 3.

( 2 ) THE office has not registered r F. A. (F. R) No. 9060/87 on the ground that the appellant therein has not impleaded the second defendant in the suit It is submitted by Sri Shivaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-first defendant that the property alienated by the 1st defendant-appellant in favour of the second defendant has been excluced from the decree of the trial court on holding that the alienation was good as it was for legal necessity. The first defendant-appellant does not challenge the said portion of the decree. Hence the second defendant is not a necessary party to the appeal preferred by the 1st defendant. In view of the fact that the appellant does not challenge the correctness of the finding recorded, and the decree passed, by the trial court in respect of the alienation made in favour of the second defendant, it is not necessary to implead the second defendant in the appeal. Hence the office objection is over ruled. It is directed to give a number to the appeal.

( 3 ) THE Appeal R. F. A. (F. R.) 9060/87 is also heard along with RFA. No 582/ 87. Sri Kulkarni learned counsel appearing for the appellants in R. F. A. 582/87 also takes notice for respondents 1 and 2 in the connected appeal R. F. A. (F. R.) 9060/87. The 2nd respondent in R. F. A. No. 582/87 is also represented by Sri ramakant V. Desai, Advocate. Sri Shivaswamy, advocate has also filed power for respondent-1 in R. F. A. 582/87.

( 4 ) THE parties in this judgment will be referred to with reference to their position in the suit. Both the appeals lie in a very narrow compass. As such they can also be decided on the undisputed facts and the findings recorded by the trial court in as much as the 1st defendant who is the appellant in R. F. A. (F. R.) 9060/87 does not contend that the 2nd plaintiff was a congenital idiot or lunatic. Further Sri shivaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st defendant has also produced the certified copies of the pleadings and i. A. No. 27 and the objections filed thereto and (he order passed thereon and also the Memo dated 17-1-1984 filed before the trial court. Hence it is not necessary to obtain the records.

( 5 ) EVEN though the appeals are posted for admission, by consent of the learned coun el appearing on both sides, these appeals are heard for final disposal.

( 6 ) THE appellants in R. F. A. 582/87 are plaintiffs 1 and 3. They along with one Srinivas Gambhir-son of the 1st plaintiff-1st appellant-filed O. S. No. 113/78 in the court of the Civil Judge, dharwad (decided by the Additional Civil judge) out of which the appeals in question arise, for partition and separate possession of the share and other reliefs against the respondents in R. F. A. 582/87 who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit.

( 7 ) THE prayers made in the suit were as follows : a) That partition and separate possession of 1/2 share in the suit properties be awarded to the plaintiff no. 1, with future mesne profits. b) Maintenance charge of Rs. 300/- per month of the plaintiff No. 2 be placed on the suit properties. c) Defendant be ordered to pay Rs. 150/- per month as his share of the maintenance of the plaintiff No. 2, to the plaintiff No. 1, on behalf of the plaintiff No. 2. Permanent injunction be issued against defendant 2 not to exercise any rights of ownership over the property said to be purchased from defendant-1 under the sale deed. (Amended as per order of the court on I. A. I. , 10-1-78.) d) Future mesne profits be awarded in court crisis and other ancillary reliefs may be awarded from defendant to plaintiff.

( 8 ) THE 1st plaintiff has claimed half share in the suit properties on the ground that the 2nd plaintiff was a congenital