Devadoss, J.

1. The first point urged in the second appeal is that the second defendant is not a transferee of the right of the first defendant and that therefore Section 27 of the Specific Belief Act has no application to him. The first and the second defendants are brothers. By Ex. I, called a deed of settlement, the first defendant relinquished all his rights in the family property in favour of the second defendant. The contract of sale with the plaintiff was on 4th March, 1919. The Subordinate Judge has held that the second defendant entered into the arrangement evidenced by Ex. I with the knowledge of the contract, in favour of the plaintiff. The question is whether the second defendant is a transferee of the right of the first defendant. The argument of Mr. Lakshmanna for the appellants is that the second defendant is a member of a joint Hindu family and when the members of the family agree to divide their property, it cannot be said that there is a transfer of the right of any one in favour of any other and that every member of a joint family is entitled to all the properties and that if one member takes some property for himself, under a partition arrangement, it can