JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife respectively. Respondent No.1 is their son. The second appellant purchased the property in question from the first appellant.

2. The respondents in this appeal are original plaintiffs. They filed a suit for declaration of their 2/3rd share, partition and possession thereof in respect of two properties described as Item No.1 and Item No.2. According to them, Schedule Item No.2 property came to appellant No.1 (original defendant No.1 in the suit) in partition between him and his brothers and it is an ancestral property. The Item No.1 property, according to the averments in the plaint, was acquired by plaintiffs and the first defendant out of joint Hindu family funds and the first defendant was trying to alienate the suit property for his self benefit and not for the benefit of the members of the family. When, during the pendency of the suit, it came to notice of the plaintiffs that Item No.1 property had been sold by the first appellant, on their application, appellant No.2 was impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit.

3. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the respondents are entitled to 2/3r