The alienation of joint family property during the pendency of a suit for partition is subject to the decree that may be passed in the suit. The alienee is entitled to claim equity in the final decree proceeding, and the decree should not take away the right of the alienee to work out their right in the final decree proceeding.

( 1 ) ). This appeal is preferred againstthe Judgment and decree dated 14-2-1990 passed by the 5th additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O. S. no. 1908/1983.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the second defendant in the suit Sri B. S. Venkataram who was the sole plaintiff in the suit died during the pendency of the suit, therefore, respondents l (i) to l (vii) were brought on record in the trial court as plaintiffs 1 to 7. Respondent 2 is the first defendant in the suit. the first defendant and second defendant are the husband and wife.

( 3 ) AT the stage of admission, the records of the appeal are received. therefore, the appeal is admitted and it is heard for final disposal on the request of both the sides.

( 4 ) SRI B. S. Venkataram filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that the defendant 'kambaiah' has no right to/over the schedule premises and has no right to occupy the same and also a decree for possession by ejectment of Kambaiah requiring him to physically move out and assure full vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff. he also further prayed for enquiry into the mesne profits and for payment of the same from the date of suit till the date of actual delivery of possession and for costs and such other reliefs as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 5 ) SUIT schedule property as described in the schedule to the plaint is as follows: "all the piece and parcel of land together with the building constructed thereon situate at junction of the Fourth Main Road and Fifth Cross Road, Chamarajpet, measuring about 22 (twenty-two) feet east to West and about 60 (sixty) feet, north to South, with the partly filed and terraced house built thereon and bearing old Municipal no. 158/1 (one fifty-eight/one), then numbered as 176 (one seventy-six) and now as no. 2 (two), bounded on the east by Smt. Sudha 's house old no. 159 (one hundred and fifty-nine) and present new no. 194/1 (one hundred ninety-four/one) West by V Cross Road, north by Conservancy lane and South by the house old no. 158 (one fifty-eight) and present no. 193 (one ninety-three) belonging to the plaintiff B. S. Venkataram. "

( 6 ) IN the suit Kambaiah remained absent even though he was served by substituted service. Mallamma the appellant herein who is the wife of Kambaiah got herself impleaded in the suit on the ground that Kambaiah was unheard of for five to six years and she was in actual possession of the suit premises along with her children. that application was allowed on 22-9-1984. She also filed the written statement.

( 7 ) THE plaintiff claimed that the suit schedule premises is the property of the joint family consisting of B. S. Venkataram, B. S. Rama Rao, B. S. narayana Rao and their children. he further averred that B. V. Subba Rao the father of B. S. Venkataram, b. S. Rama Rao and B. S. narayana Rao had alienated the suit schedule premises along with other premises and that alienation was declared as null and void in O. S. no. 34/1949-50 and therefore the property continued to be the joint family property; that there was a suit filed by him and his children in O. S. no. 18/1965 for partition and separate possession of their share; that during the pendency of that suit B. S. Rama rao and his son nagaraj alienated the suit schedule premises in favour of Jayamma on 20-4-1967 and pursuant to the sale Jayamma was put in possession of the suit schedule premises; that Jayamma in turn sold the suit schedule premises to Kambaiah on 21-9-1970 and put the suit schedule premises in possession of Kambaiah; that the sale effected in favour of Jayamma and Kambaiah are null and void and as such Kambaiah has no right to remain in possession. hence, the plaintiff prayed for the aforesaid reliefs.

( 8 ) AS already pointed out Kambaiah did not appear in the suit it was only Mallamma the wife of Kambaiah who got herself impleaded as second defendant filed the written statement. She set up the title to the suit propert