MURLIDHER RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the 8th defendant in O. S. No. 94/1981 on the file of the additional Civil Judge, Mandya. The said suit was filed by the 1st respondent in this appeal. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent is the younger brother of respondent-2 Ningagowda. The father of respondents-1 and 2 was one Siddegowda @ Girkegowda, who, it is stated, died in the year 1971. Respondents 1 and 2 had five sisters, who are respondents 3 to 8 herein. Defendant-8 (appellant herein) is the wife's sister's husband of first defendant ; he had filed a suit against his first defendant i. e. , wife's sister's husband in O. S. 63/76. The said suit ended in a compromise decree. In execution of the seid compromise decree, it is asserted that the properties mentioned therein were taken possession of, in Ex. No, 163/78 and Misc. 52/80 through court. Admittedly, on the date of the said suit, the 1st respondent was a minor. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit claiming 3/8th share in the joint-family properties. ( 3 ) THE 1st and the 8th defendant resisted the suit. The trial court raised the following issues : 1. 8th defendant to prove that the plaintiff and defendant-1 got divided after the death of Siddegowda. 2. 8th defendant to prove that items 6 to 8 and 10 fell to the share of 1st defendant. 3. Plaintiff to prove that the court proceedings in O. S. 63/1976 is collusive. 4 ). Plaintiff to prove that he is entitled to 3/8th share in the suit property. 5. To what reliefs ? ( 4 ) THE defendants failed to establish that there was a prior partition between the parties. The 8th defendant failed to establish that items 6 to 8 and 10 fell to the share of the 1st defendant. These items were the subject matter of o. S No. 63/1976. The trial court has held that in view of the close relationship between the 1st defendant and the 8th defendant and in the absence of a partition, the decree in O. S. No. 63/1976 was a collusive decree. Having arrived at these conclusions, the trial court decreed the suit declaring that the court proceedings of O. S. 63/76, Ex. 163/78, misc. Having arrived at these conclusions, the trial court decreed the suit declaring that the court proceedings of O. S. 63/76, Ex. 163/78, misc. 52/80 in respect of items 6 to 8 and 10 of the suit schedule properties to the extent of the plaintiff's 3/8th share is not binding on the plaintiff and does not affect his rights. On the alternative plea, the court held that the 8th defendant has failed to establish that the transactions between him and the 1st defendant were for legal necessity. ( 5 ) IN this appeal, Mr. M. S. Gopal, appearing for the appellant, contended that the court below should have held on the alternative plea that the alienations made by the 1st respondent were supported by legal necessity. He contended that as there was no issue framed by the trial court in this regard, the omission vitiates the judgment. We are not prepared to accept this contention. Having regard to the fact that the parties have let in evidence on this aspect of the matter and the court below has, after appreciation of evidence, held that there was no legal necessity or family necessity for 1st defendant to incur loans, with which we agree, the omission to frame an issue has not prejudiced the appellant. In this regard we are supported by the decision of the Supreme court in Nagu Bat v B. Shama Rao (AIR 7956 SC 593 ). ( 6 ) HAVING gone through the judgment, we do not find any infirmity either in the procedure followed or the conclusion reached by the court below. It is to be mentioned that the contention of the appellant is really misconceived. So far as the share of the 1st defendant i. e. , his wife's sister's husband is concerned. that share is in tact and the decree under appeal does not affect his right. ( 7 ) WITH this observation, we dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .