Ratio-Rights of alienee from a co-parcener.

The first defendant in O.S. No. 291 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Thanjavur is the appellant before this Court. The appellant is the father and the third respondent is the son and they constitute a Hindu undivided family. The third respondent on 18th September, 1947, sold a particular item of property belonging to the joint family to the first respondent herein, and that the sale deed has been marked as Exhibit A-2 in the case. The first respondent, in turn, sold the property to the second respondent by a document, dated 6th August, 1959, marked as Exhibit A-1 in this case. As a result of these transactions the second respondent came into possession of the property. Thereafter the appellant filed O.S. No. 256 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Thanjavur for recovery of possession of the property contending that the sale deed, dated 18th September, 1947, in favour of the first respondent herein was not binding on him, that he was himself the manager of the family and that the third respondent had no right to alienate the property. The suit itself had a chequered career and ultimately came to be disposed of by the learned District Judge of West Thanjavur on 30th March, 1964 in A.S. No. 196 of 1960. "The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the sale was not binding on the appellant herein and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to recover possession of the property from the second respondent herein. At the same time, he was of the view that respondents 1 and 2 herein as alienees from the third respondent herein would be entitled to file a suit for general partition. Consequently, while declaring that the appellant herein was entitled to possession of the property and that the sale by the third respondent was not binding on him, in terms of the law declared by this Court in Kandaswami Udayan v. Velayutha Udayan1, he granted stay of the execution of the decree for a period of two months to enable respondents 1 and 2 herein to file a suit for partition. It is thereafter that respondents 1 and 2 herein instituted O.S. No. 291 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Thanjavur for a general partition of the properties belonging to the joint family of the appellant and the third respondent herein and allotment of the item purchased by the first and second respondents to the share of the third respondent herein. The suit was resisted by the appellant as well as the third respondent, the third respondent putting forward a further contention, that the sale deed executed by him in favour of the first respondent was not enforceable as he executed the same under the influence of drink. This case put forward by the third respondent was rejected by the learned District Munsif, but the learned District Munsif by his judgment and decree dated 13th August, 1965, dismissed the suit. He took the view that the first respondent had alienated the property in favour of the second respondent and that therefore he had no further interest in the property. As far as the second respondent was concerned, he was not an alienee from a coparcener, but an alienee from the alienee of a coparcener and, therefore, he had no right to institute a suit for general partition. For this purpose he relied on the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gurunadham v. Venkata Rao2. Against this judgment and decree respondents 1 and 2 herein preferred A.S. No. 119 of 1965 before the learned Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur, who, by his judgment and decree, dated 26th April, 1966, reversed the conclusion of the learned District Munsif, and decreed the suit of respondents 1 and 2 herein. Before the learned Subordinate Judge reliance was placed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 on the decision of Veeraswami, J. (as he then was) in Second Appeal No. 272 of 1959 and following that decision alone the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit of respondents 1 and