Judgment :- 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit for partition and recovery of possession of 3/5 shares in the plaint schedule property. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition holding that plaintiffs are entitled to 3/15 shares jointly. This has been confirmed by the District Judge in A. S.61 of 1979. 2. The three plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant are the sons of the 1st defendant. They are members of an undivided Hindu family. The suit property originally belonged to Anantharama Pattar. After his death. Krishna Pattar. Rama Pattar and Harihara Pattar partitioned the property in 1937 and the suit property was set apart to Krishna Pattar. Krishna Pattar bad three sons. namely Anantharama Iyer. Subramania Iyer and the 1st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that while Anantharama Iyer. Subramania Iyer and 1st defendant were enjoying the property as joint family property. Anatharama Iyer relinquished his right in the property to Subramania Iyer as per Exhibit B3 document) that in 1965 Subramania Iyer gifted his rights in the property to the branch of the 1st defendant. that 1st defendant was in management of the property. that the plaintiffs were residing in different places in connection with their employment. that the 3rd defendant prevailed upon the 1st defendant and obtained sale deed in respect of the entire property from him. that the assignment deed in favour of the 3rd defendant is not binding on the plaintiffs or the 2nd defendant and that the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of their 3/5 shares with damages and mesne profits from the date of the suit. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 remained exparte. 3rd defendant resisted the suit contending that plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 have filed the suit conclusively. that he purchased the property for valuable consideration from the 1st defendant. that the sale was for the benefit of the 1st defendant and his heirs. that at any rate only 1/3 share in the property which belonged to the 1st defendant alone could be partitioned and that the 2/3 shares which be obtained as per Exhibits B3 and 84 cannot be claimed by the plaintiffs. 4. It is not disputed that the property belonged to Anantharama Pattar and after his death his three sons entered into a partition deed as evidenced by Exhibit Al. 4. It is not disputed that the property belonged to Anantharama Pattar and after his death his three sons entered into a partition deed as evidenced by Exhibit Al. It is also in evidence that Krishna Pattar had three sons and after his death the property devolved on his three sons. The trial Court has rightly held that there cannot be any doubt that the suit property was ancestral property. 5. The trial Court held that 2/3 right in the property belonged to the 1st defendant individually and 1/3 right belonged to the joint family consisting of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. The trial Court further held that plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant have 1/5 share each with respect to the 1/3 right belonging to the joint family and that alone was decreed to be partitioned. Counsel for the appellants contended that Exhibits B3 and B4 are renunciation or release deeds executed by one co-parcener regarding his interest in the joint family property and therefore the rights under the aforesaid documents passed on to the co-parcener consisting of the 1st defendant and his sons. It is argued that a member of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mithakshara Law cannot give his interest in the family property to one of the co-parceners if they remain joint in estate. Counsel submitted that though Anantharama Iyer executed Exhibit B3 in favour of Subramania Iyer the rights can only enure to the co-parceners who remained joint in estate and therefore 1st defendant could not have alienated the property to the 3rd defendant as if it belonged to him alone. In AIR 1945 Madras 142 (F.B.) Chella Subbanna v. Chella Balasubbareddi) the question propounded was whether one member of a joint Hindu family consisting of several members can. irrespective of a partition of the family estate. give his own interest therein to one of the other co-parceners. The Court held as follows: "A member of a joint Hindu family governed by Mithakshara Law cannot give bis interest in the family estate to one of several co-parceners if they remain joint in estate. irrespective of a partition of the family estate. give his own interest therein to one of the other co-parceners. The Court held as follows: "A member of a joint Hindu family governed by Mithakshara Law cannot give bis interest in the family estate to one of several co-parceners if they remain joint in estate. In such circumstances be can relinquish his interest but the relinquishment operates for the benefit of all the other members." As Anantharama Iyer being member of a joint Hindu family governed by the Hindu Mithakshara Law cannot give his interest in the co-parcenery property to Subramania Iyer who is one of the several co¬parceners it has to be held that rights conferred under Exhibit B3 operate for the benefit of all the other members of the joint family. 6. Next point to be considered is whether Subramania Iyer could have validly executed Exhibit B4 gift deed in favour of the 1st defendant. The recitals in Exhibit B4 unequivocally show that it is a gift pure and simple. The District Judge has also held so. The question is whether an individual member of a Hindu family can alienate by way of gift his undivided share or any portion thereof. In XXVII ILR. Madras 162 (Rottala Runganatham Chetty v. Pulicat Ramasami Chetty) it is held as follows: "It is not competent to an individual member of a Hindu family to alienate by way of gift his undivided share or any portion thereof; and such an alienation. if made is void in toto". In 1969 (2) M. L. J. 597. (Srinivasa Padayachi v. Paravathi Ammal) the Madras High Court held as follows: "It is now settled law that under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law no coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in co-parcenery property by way of gift. Such a transaction will be void in toto and will not bind even the donor or his share of the property". As Subramania Iyer who has only a co-parcenery right gifted his property as per Exhibit B4 it has to be held that Exhibit B4 is void in toto. 7. As Exhibit B4 gift deed does not have any validily the indisputable position is that Subramania Iyer and the 1st defendant along with their children have rights in the property. pw 1 has admitted that Subramania Iyer died in 1966 leaving two children. 7. As Exhibit B4 gift deed does not have any validily the indisputable position is that Subramania Iyer and the 1st defendant along with their children have rights in the property. pw 1 has admitted that Subramania Iyer died in 1966 leaving two children. In view of that evidence it has to be held that plaintiffs are not entitled to 1/5 share each as pleaded by them. As pw.1 has admitted that Subramania Iyer has two sons the property cannot be partitioned without recognising their rights also. Apart from Subramania Iyer's two sons persons who are entitled to rights in the property are the three plaintiffs. 1st defendant and 2nd defendant. Each one of them will be entitled to 1/7 share. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled to 3/7 shares together. 3rd defendant is legally entitled to claim only the share of the 1st defendant. 8. The concurrent findings of the courts below that plaintiffs are entitled only to 3/15 shares cannot be sustained as they are together entitled to 3/7 shares. Judgment and decree of the trial Court are accordingly modified. The direction of the trial Court regarding the future mesne profits due to the plaintiffs is confirmed. The Second Appeal is allowed as stated above with no order as to costs. Decree modified.