Satyanarayana Rao, J.-The third defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The facts are not seriously in dispute and are not complicated. The question raised is also a simple one, though the arguments before us ranged and covered a wider ground not strictly germane to the disposal of the case. The case itself was heard in the first instance by Panchapagesa Sastri, J., who directed the papers to be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for the case to be heard either by a Bench or a Full Bench in view of the conflicting decisions relating to the method of adjusting the equities between the alienee and the non-alienating co-parcener under a sale, part of the consideration of which was applied for purposes binding on the family. The case then came up for hearing before a Full Bench of three Judges who referred the case to a Fuller Bench of five Judges. When the matter was referred to the Fuller Bench, the case itself and not any particular question was referred and therefore the scope of the hearing before the Full Bench was not restricted or confined to any particular question or questions. The case was argued ably on both sides for about six days and all the available authorities including the Hindu Law texts were placed before us.

The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. The father sold under Exhibit D-1, dated the 28th November, 1934, six acres, 56 cents, of lands specified in schedule II attached to the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 13,400 out of which, as has now been concurrently found by the Courts below, only a sum of Rs. 7,022 was applied for discharge of binding debts of the family. The father was adjudicated an insolvent in I.P.No. 17 of 1935, Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, and the properties specified in schedules IV to XII appended to the plaint were sold by the Official Receiver in whom the interest of the insolvent had vested by reason of the adjudication. The present suit was filed by the son on the 11th January, 1945, impleading all the alienees of the father as well as the Official Receiver as defendants. The relief claimed in the suit is partition and separate possession of each item of property in each of the schedules I to XII into two equal parts and for an allotment to him his share, one of the parts in each item. The plaint proceeds on the footing that on the date of the action, the plaintiff and the first defendant were members of a Mitakshara joint family and that the alienations made, either by the first defendant or the Official Receiver, do not bind the plaintiff’s interest in the family properties specified in schedules I to XII of the plaint. The plaintiff examined on his side, the first defendant, his father, as P.W. 1 who admitted in his evidence that he and the plaintiff were undivided on the date of the suit and that the properties were ancestral properties allotted to the father’s share in a partition between himself and his elder brother in 1930. In this appeal we are concerned only with the alienation by the father in 1934 in favour of the third defendant of schedule II properties. The plaintiff attacked the sale in favour of the third defendant alleging that it was neither for necessity nor for the benefit of the joint family and that it was an under sale. It has been found that the value of the properties conveyed under Exhibit D-1 was not Rs. 13,400 but Rs. 16,400 on the date of the sale and that the consideration from out of this sale was binding on the family only to the extent of Rs.7,022. As a result of this finding a preliminary decree for partition and recovery of possession of the plaintiff’s half share in the properties comprised in schedule II was granted in favour of the plaintiff without making any provision for payment by the plaintiff of a proportionate share of the binding consideration. This decree was affirmed on appeal by the District Judge. Both the Courts, in rejecting the claim of the third defendant for a provision for payment by the plain