JUDGMENT : Barman, A.C.J. 1. The unsuccessful Plaintiffs in the Courts below are the Appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Plaintiffs for a declaration of their joint title to the extent of their two-thirds share in the properties described in Schedule A of the plaint in the circumstances hereinafter stated. 2. One Hari Muduli had three sons, Mohani (Plaintiff No. 1) Satyananda. (Plaintiff No. 2) and Nidhi who died in 1937, leaving behind him surviving, his son Lakshman who is Defendant No. 2 in the present suit. Defendant No. 1 Dharmananda Sahoo is a decree-holder under a compromise decree in a previous suit hereinafter mentioned. 3. The Plaintiffs' case is that they and Defendant No. 2 Lakshman are all joint. On March 17, 1962 with joint family funds the lands described in Schedule A of the plaint were purchased by Defendant No. 2 Lakshman from one Janardan under a Kabuliyat (Ext. All). In 1952 Dharmananda Sahoo filed Title Suit No. 244 of 1952 against Lakshman and Janardan for specific performance of a contract dated November 12, 1951 to sell their property to Dharmananda Sahoo for the consideration of Rs. 450/ -. In the said suit the Plaintiffs were not impleaded as parties but it is quite clear from paragraph 3 of the plaint that the said suit was being contested by the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2 jointly, through Defendant No. 2 Lakshman. There was a compromise decree in the said suit in favour of Dharmananda Sahoo (Defendant No. 1) dated December 17, 1957 which Ext. C/l in the said suit and was marked as Ext. 1 in the present suit. 4. The Plaintiffs-Appellants filed the present suit on September 3, 1958 for declaration of title, against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 mainly on the ground that the said compromise entered into by Lakshman in respect of the suit properties was prejudical to the interest, of the Plaintiffs; the said compromise was vitiated by undue influence and coercion and is not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties. The Plaintiffs' case is that Lakshman alone had no right to effect a compromise and relinquish title to a portion of the suit properties without the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiffs. 5. Defendant No. 1 Dharmananda Sahoo contested the suit. The Plaintiffs' case is that Lakshman alone had no right to effect a compromise and relinquish title to a portion of the suit properties without the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiffs. 5. Defendant No. 1 Dharmananda Sahoo contested the suit. His defence was that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2 (Lakshman) were separate since 1950, that the suit properties were the self-acquisitions of Defendant No. 2 alone, and that Defendant No. 1 got the entire property under the compromise decree. 6. The trial Court, dismissed the Plaintiff' suit on the finding that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2 separated long ago; that the suit properties were the self-acquisitions of Defendant No. 2; and that the compromise entered into in the said title suit No. 244 of 1951 was valid. In appeal the learned lower appellate Court upheld the decision of the trial Court. Hence this second appeal by the Plaintiffs. 7. The main reasoning on which the learned lower appellate Court had dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit as stated in paragraph 8 of his judgment was this: I am of opinion that Defendant No. 2 represented the joint family in the previous suit and the compromise was effected by him with the knowledge and implied consent of the Plaintiffs and consequently the decision in Title suit No. 244 of 1952 operates as res judicater and it is not open to the Plaintiffs to assert that their interest is not bound by the compromise in the previous suit. 8. It was contended on behalf of the Plaintiffs Appellants that it was not open to Defendant No. 2 (Lakshman) to enter into a compromise, and the Plaintiffs not having been parties in the previous suit are not bound by the same. This argument, however, loses its force in view of the Plaintiffs' own case in the plaint in the present suit that the previous suit was being contested by the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2 jointly through Defendant No. 2 as aforesaid. 9. That apart, it is not correct to say that in every case it is only the Karta who can enter into such a compromise in order to be binding on the other members of the family. 9. That apart, it is not correct to say that in every case it is only the Karta who can enter into such a compromise in order to be binding on the other members of the family. Hindu Law authorises a younger member of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family to alienate or otherwise deal with immovable property belonging to the family, for family necessity, whenever he is put forward to the outside world by the elder members of the family, as the managing member. The power of a younger member of a joint Hindu family to deal with immovable property belonging to it under circumstances such as we find to exist in the present case is amply borne out by the texts of Hindu Law 0.8 fully discussed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court: the power of a dependant member of a joint family, who is for some reason or other entrusted with the management of the joint estate, must be such as would enable him to deal with it for the benefit of the coparceners in case of need; the assent of the other members, including that of even a father or a grandfather, if they be alive, would be implied. Brihaspati, quoted in the Viramitrodya, says: "Should even a dependant member enter into a transaction for the need of the family, the head of the family should not set it aside". Mudit Narayan Singh v. Ranglal Singh I.L.R 29 Cal 797. 10. This view also finds support in a Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court, where while finding the reasons of the learned Subordinate Judge for holding that a sale-deed was not binding on the joint family, as not satisfactory, or convincing, their Lordships held that the Subordinate Judge was under the impression that alienation by a member of a joint family who is not the Karta of the family is in no circumstances binding on the family; the Subordinate Judge said that in order to bind the family the alienation must be by the managing member of the family and it must be for antecedent debt and for legal necessity of the joint family and accordingly the learned Subordinate Judge found that the Plaintiff No. 1 in that case was the managing member and Defendant No. 1 therein was not the managing member and for these reasons the sale was invalid. Their Lordships held that this broad proposition of law acted upon by the learned Subordinate Judge in that case was not correct. It cannot be said that under no circumstances can an alienation of a joint family property by a junior member of the family be binding on the family Ram Das Singh Vs. Tanak Singh and Others, . 11. The question here is: Had Lakshman acting alone in entering into the compromise in the previous suit authority to bind-the other member? On the facts of the case the answer is; Yes. The Plaintiffs' own case in paragraph 3 of the plaint is to the effect that the said suit was being contested by Lakshman on behalf of the family. Lakshman compromised the said suit; the assent of the other members of the family including the Plaintiffs to the compromise would be implied. 12. It was also submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs-Appellants that under the compromise decree in the previous suit (which was Ext. C/1 therein) plot No. 754 in Khata No. 307 with an area of 3 decimals was given to Dharmananda Sahoo and that plot No. 779 in Khata No. 3 with an area of 5 decimals was given to Lakshman (Defendant No. 2) and accordingly Dharmananda Sahoo (Respondent-Defendant herein) is not entitled to more than two decimals. This argument was taken for the first time here in this second appeal. In neither of the Courts below was this point taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs; in fact this point was not taken even as one of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal in this second appeal. It is therefore not open to the Plaintiffs to take up this point at this stage. 13. In these circumstance's this Court holds that the Plaintiffs are bound by the result of the decree in the previous suit, namely Title Suit No. 244 of J 952. 14. In this view of the case the decision of the Court below dismissing the Plaintiffs' suit is upheld. This second appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed