( 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 until the disposal of the suit but if no such suit is brought within that period, then the stay of execution will stand cancelled". On the first point, it was held by learned Single Judge that the said plea was not raised in the lower Court and that, in any case a karta of a family could not be equated with an ostensible owner and hence the contention had no force. In support of the second contention, reliance was placed on the decision of a Division bench of this Court in Shriram v. Baboo F. A. No. 36 of 1961. D/-9-3-1965 (Madh pra ). wherein similar direction was given in the decree. Learned Single Judge doubted the propriety of adding such a rider in the decree and hence directed that this case should be placed before a Full Bench for reconsideration of the propriety of adding such a rider.

( 2 ) THE reasoning of learned Single Judge for doubting the propriety of such a direction is to the following effect:--

"admittedly, according to the law administered in this State a non-alienating coparcener has a right to bring a suit for possession and to retain possession of the property till the purchaser from a coparcener brings a suit for partition and realization of his share of property which he has purchased from the alienating coparcener. Therefore, as long as such a suit is not filed and decreed. the non-alienating coparcener has a right to remain in possession of the property. There is absolutely no equity in favour of a purchaser from one of the coparceners to remain in possession of the whole property as long as his suit for realization of his share is not decided. The alienee being the plaintiff in that suit may indefinitely delay the decision of that suit and remain in possession of the whole property although at the best under his sale deed he is entitled to a fractional share of his alienor. "

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the Mitakshara law as administered In Bombay. Madras and madhya Pradesh a coparcener may sell mortgage or otherwise alienate for value his undivided interest in coparcenary property without the consent of the other coparceners. But he has no right to alienate, as his interest any specific property belonging to the coparcenary, for no coparcener can before partition claim any such property as his own; and if he does alienate, the alienation is valid to the extent only of his own interest in the alienated property. The question that arises for our consideration is as to what are the rights of the purchaser from a coparcener of a specific property when he hasbeen put in possession thereof. It is now well settled that if the purchaser has obtained possession, the non-alienating coparceners are entitled to sue for and recover possession of the property for the benefit of the joint family, including the vendor. It is also further held in som