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