( 1 ) THE defendant had purchased a house from the plaintiff's father and was put in possession thereof. The plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that the sale in favour of the defendant was without legal necessity. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed possession of the house. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the property in question being coparcenary property and there being no legal necessity, the sale was not binding on the plaintiff. A decree for possession of the suit property was. therefore, granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant thereupon preferred this appeal. When the case came before a learned Single judge (Bishambhar Dayal, C. J.) it was urged that the defendant being a bona fide purchaser for value from ostensible owner, the sale should have been upheld and that, in any case, the Courts below should have given a direction to the effect that "the execution of the decree in so far as it directs the purchaser to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff be stayed for a fixed period and if before the expiry of that period the purchaser brings a suit for general partition against the plaintiff, then the stay should continue