( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Second Appeals Nos. 732 of 1970, 54 of 1971 and civil Revision No. 51 of 1971 also. These cases were heard together as they involve common question of law.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff, Mahadeorao is a non-alienating coparcener. All the other members of the joint Hindu family of Which he is a member, his brothers. Khushalrao. Ganpatrao, Shamrao and Vasantrao and his mother. Mst. Savitribai, joined in alienating certain items of joint family property. The plaintiff thereupon brought suits to impeach the alienations, claiming a declaration that the alienations were not binding on him as they were not for legal necessity. He, therefore, claimed possession of the alienated property from the purchasers. Those suits were dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that there was no joint family in existence. That decree was affirmed in appeal in two of the suits. In the other two suits, the decree was, however, reversed. Both the parties, therefore, appealed to the High Court. Naik, J. , in Narayan v. Mahadeorao, 1971 MPLJ 239 held that there was no disruption of the joint status, and as the alienations were not for legal necessity, the plaintiff was entitled to be placed in possession of the whole of the property. The learned Judge, however, stayed the execution of the decree for a period of three months to enable the purchasers to file a suit for general partition, and work out their rights in such a suit. Admittedly, the purchasers have now filed a general suit for partition,

( 3 ) AFTER the decision of this Court, the plaintiff brought suits claiming mesne profits for the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67, i. e. , for the period during which the second appeals in title suits were pending in this Court. The learned trial Judge in second Appeals Nos. 714/70, 732/70 and 54/71 decreed the plaintiff's suit in its entirety. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge has however, modified that decree and made the mesne profits payable proportionately to the share of the plaintiff in the faint family property, i. e. , to the extent of l/6th share. The learned trial Judge in the small cause case, where the plaintiffs were Mahadeorao and Vasantrao, decreed proportionate mesne Profits according to their share, i. e. , to the extent of l/3rd. That is the subject-matter of Civil Revision No. 51 of 1971 in this Court.

( 4 ) THE short question involved in these cases is whether a non-alienating coparcener, who succeeds in his suit for possession against the purchaser on the ground that the alienation is not supported by any legal necessity, is entitled to claim full mesne profits from the purchaser. The learned Additional District Judge, relying upon the principles laid down in Rambir Narhargir Gosai v. Prabhakar bhaskar Gadhaway. AIR 1955 Nag 300 has held that the plaintiff was only entitled to claim mesne profits to the extent of his share, as the alienation was binding on the other coparceners and, therefore, valid to that extent It is urged on behalf of the plaintiff that there is unity of ownership in a Hindu coparcenery and, therefore, the principles laid down in AIR 1955 Nag 300 (supra) are not applicable to a claim of a non-alienating coparcener for mesne profits against the purchaser. It is further urged that that was a case of co-sharers, where the shares were denned and, therefore, there was proportionate liability of the purchaser. Reliance is placed on the decision in Digambar v. Himmat. ILR (1955) Nag 1042. But that principle cannot be extended to a Hindu coparcenery. There can hardly be any dispute with the proposition that in a Mitakshara coparcenery, there is community of interest and unity of possession and, therefore, no coparecner can predicate the extent of his share. But It does not follow that that entitles him to claim the full mesne profits from a purchaser when the alienation is found to be not binding on him for want of legal necessity.

( 5 ) UNDER the Mitakshara School o