JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 4th June, 1984 passed by the District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Nahan whereby the appeal of the appellants-defendants was dismissed and the decree and judgment dated 31st May, 1978 of Sub Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh, District Solan, was affirmed. 2. The Sub Judge 1st class, Nalagarh, had passed a decree in favour of respondent-plaintiff Mohinder Singh alias Shiv Kumar and against the appellants-defendants Sant Ram and Janki Ram, respondents-defendants No. 2 to 5, Inder Prabhu, Sohnu and Ram Kishan and one Munshi Ram, who were defendant’s No. 1 to 7 in the suit. It was declared that the respondent-plaintiff is the son of respondent-defendant Prabhu and the land in dispute was co-parcenery and Joint Hindu Family property of respondent-plaintiff and respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi. The sales made by respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi in favour of appellant-defendant Sant Ram were declared without consideration as well as without legal necessity or without benefit of the estate. As such, the respondent-plaintiff was held entitled to get back the possession of the suit land from the appellants-defendants and respondent-defendant Inder. 3. Respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi were owners of the suit land. At the first instance, they sold the suit land except 6 Biswas to the appellant-defendant Sant Ram vide registered sale deed dated 12th October, 1962. Out of the total land purchased by Sant Ram, 10 Bighas 3 Biswas was further sold by him to the appellant-defendant Janki Ram vide registered sale-deed dated 1st April, 1966. Later on, 6 Biswas was also sold to appellant-defendant Sant Ram who further transferred it to respondent-defendant Inder and Rapat Roznamacha dated 21st May, 1971 was entered on the basis of which mutation was also attested. 4. On 18th June, 1974, the respondent-plaintiff, who was minor at that time, filed a suit through his mother Smt. Satya Devi as his next friend in the Court of Sub Judge, Nalagarh challenging the above stated sales on the ground that respondent-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi who were members of Joint Hindu family had no right to sell the suit property which was the co-parcenary property without consideration and without any legal necessity. He made allegations in the plaint that respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi, vendors, were notorious spendthrifts and of immoral character. 5. He made allegations in the plaint that respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi, vendors, were notorious spendthrifts and of immoral character. 5. The appellants-defendants, by filing separate written statements, resisted the suit on various grounds, inter alia, that the land in dispute was neither Hindu Joint Family nor co-parcenary property of the respondent-plaintiff and respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi. It was also alleged that the respondent-plaintiff had no locus standi to challenge the sales in question being after born son. Otherwise also, he had no right of inheritance in the property of defendant-respondent Ram Kishan, who had a son Chuhru, and respondent-defendant Sohnu and Prabhu, his father, and Munshi during the life time of respondent-defendant Prabhu. According to them, the respondent-plaintiff and respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi were governed by custom in the matter of alienation according to which the respondent-plaintiff could not challenge the sales in dispute. It was denied that the vendors were persons of bad characte and notorious spend-thrifts and that the sales were neither for consideration nor for legal necessity as alleged by the respondent-plaintiff. The stand of the appellant-defendant Janki Ram was that he was a bona fide purchaser and the sale made to him was protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to him, after the purchase from the appellant-defendant Sant Ram, he had built a Pucca House, by spending about Rs. 7,000/-. On a part of the land and if the suit is decreed against him, he is entitled to this amount. The respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 - and Munshi did not resist the suit. 6. The defence of the appellants-defendants did not find favour with the trial court. It passed a decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiff as stated hereinabove. The findings of the trial Court were further affirmed by the District Judge in the appeal filed by the appellant-defendants. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal which is under the unamended S. 100 C.P.C. and this Court may interfere with the impugned decree and judgment only on questions of law. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court finds that both the Courts below have arrived at the following concurrent findings of fact :- (i) The respondent-plaintiff Mohinder Singh alias Shiv Kumar is the son of respondent-defendant Prabhu. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court finds that both the Courts below have arrived at the following concurrent findings of fact :- (i) The respondent-plaintiff Mohinder Singh alias Shiv Kumar is the son of respondent-defendant Prabhu. He was born on 30th September, 1963. His certificate of birth is on record as Ex.P-6. Sale of the suit property was made on 12th October, 1962, admittedly before the birth of the respondent-plaintiff, except 6 Biswas which was sold on 26th September, 1964, admittedly after the birth of the respondent-plaintiff. Both the Courts below have held that the respondent-plaintiff was not even conceived on the date of sale, that is, 12th October, 1962. (ii) At the time of sale, the property in dispute was Joint Hindu Family property which respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi had inherited from common ancestors, S/Sh. Gohru and Anant Ram. (iii) The respondent-plaintiff and respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi in the matter of alienation were governed by Hindu Law and not by custom as alleged on behalf of the appellants-defendants. Neither there were specific pleadings nor proof to hold that they were governed by custom and what that custom was. (iv) The respondent-plaintiff, though an after-born son, had a right to challenge the sales on the ground that these were without legal necessity and were not for the benefit of the estate as at the time of sales there were co-parceners, sons of respondents-defendants Ram Kishan and Sohnu, who had not consented to the sales. (v) The sales made by respondents-defendants No. 3 to 5 and Munshi in favour of the appellant-defendant Sant Ram were without consideration as well as without legal necessity and benefit of the estate. 8. Sh. Trilok Chauhan appearing vice learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has tried to challenge the finding of fact, stated above at (iii) on the ground that both the Courts below have misread the pleadings and the evidence. This point has been raised to be rejected. This Court has gone through the written statements as well as the evidence. 9. 8. Sh. Trilok Chauhan appearing vice learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has tried to challenge the finding of fact, stated above at (iii) on the ground that both the Courts below have misread the pleadings and the evidence. This point has been raised to be rejected. This Court has gone through the written statements as well as the evidence. 9. In his Additional Objections; stated at the end of his written statement appellant-defendant Sant Ram had alleged as under :- 8(v) That vendors and the plaintiff belong to Agricultural tribe and are governed in matters of alienation by Custom according to which plaintiff is not competent to challenge the sale in dispute as neither the property in dispute is ancestral nor the plaintiff was born or concepted at the time of sale in dispute and the sale was for consideration and legal necessity and was an act of good management. Possession could not be claimed during the life time of the vendors by the plaintiff." 10. These pleadings are very vague and it is not clear what was the custom which governed alienation between the respondent-plaintiff and the vendors. Similarly, the statements of the witnesses produced by the appellants-defendants are only to the extent that the respondent-plaintiff and the vendors, in the matter of alienation, were governed by a custom. Though appellant-defendant Sant Ram in his cross-examination has stated that the custom is that a son has no right in the property of his father during his life time, yet, he has further admitted that the respondent-plaintiff and the vendors are Hindus and in the matter of marriages, last rites and other ceremonies they are governed by Hindu law. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the pleadings and the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff and the vendors were governed by Hindu law and not by custom in the matter of alienation. 11. The only law point urged by Sh. Trilok Chauhan is that the respondent-plaintiff Mohinder Singh alias Shiv Kumar, being an after born son, did not have independent right to challenge the sales made before his birth without impleading those co-parceners as party through whom he had claimed his right and who had not consented to the sales. According to him, these co-parceners were the sons of respondent-defendants Ram Kishan and Sohnu. According to him, these co-parceners were the sons of respondent-defendants Ram Kishan and Sohnu. According to Shri Chauhan, the suit of the respondent-plaintiff should fail on this count. On the other hand, Sh. Kashmiri Lal appearing vice learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has urged that this is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be permitted to be raised in the Regular Second Appeal as it was not taken initially. 12. Before the question of law raised by Shri Chauhan is answered, the pleadings and the evidence is required to be scrutinised to find out whether this point was raised in any manner or not. The appellants-defendants in their written statements did not raise this specific objection that the suit was bad for non-joinder of existing co-parceners, that is, the sons of respondents-defendants Ram Kishan and Sohnu, through whom the respondent-plaintiff had claimed his right to challenge the sales. Appellant-defendant Sant Ram has only stated in para 2 of his written statement that, "......Ram Kishan, defendant No. 7 has a son Chuhru and plaintiff has no right of inheritance in the property of Ram Kishan". In the Additional Objections stated at the and of the written-statement, in para 8(iii), it is further stated that, "Material facts regarding existence of a son of Ram Kishan, defendant No. 7 has been concealed;". Though there were no pleadings, yet, Issue No. 7 was framed that :- "Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties as alleged ? OPD 13. While deciding this Issue, the trial court had held as under:- "It has been argued by the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff should have made the sons of Sohnu and Ram Kishan defendnats also parties in this suit and, therefore, the suit is bad for their absence, but this land has been sold by defendants Nos. 4 to 7 in favour of defendant No. 1 and only they were the necessary parties to the suit. There was no need to implead all the coparceners. Hence this issue is also decided against the defendants." 14. Before the District Judge, neither in the grounds of appeal nor at the time of arguments, these findings were challenged. Therefore, the contention of Sh. There was no need to implead all the coparceners. Hence this issue is also decided against the defendants." 14. Before the District Judge, neither in the grounds of appeal nor at the time of arguments, these findings were challenged. Therefore, the contention of Sh. Kashmiri Lal, appearing vice learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, is accepted to the extent that this point, in the manner it is raised before this court was not raised before the Courts below. However, since it has come in the pleadings and the evidence that respondents-defendants Ram Kishan and Sohnu had sons, Chuhru and Dewan Chand respectively, who had not consented to the sales at the time of alienation and though whom the respondent-plaintiff has claimed his right to challenge the sales, this Court is inclined to consider the point raised that what is the effect of their being not impleaded as party respondents. 15. By now, it is settled proposition of law that a coparcener whether he is natural born or adopted into the family acquires an interest by birth or adoption, as the case may be, in the ancestral property of the family. If, at the time of alienation made by a coparcener, another member of coparcenery is in existence or in the womb of his mother, the power of coparcener to alienate is circumscribed and sale would be voidable at the instance of the existing member or the one whom was in the womb and subsequently born unless it is made for purposes binding on the members of the Joint Hindu Family or the existing member or the subsequently born member consents or ratifies it after he attains majority. In other words, there is a general rule that a member of the joint family must be content with the family estate as he finds it at his birth or at any rate he cannot complain of anything done before the period of gestation. But there is an exception to the general rule that if the child who objects to the alienation of the property by a coparcener comes into existence or is conceived after the alienation but during the life of a child born or conceived before the alienation, who has not consented or ratified the alienation, then the over-lapping of two lives enables the later-born son to contest the validity of the alienation. The only limitation is that he is to exercise his right within the period of limitation available to the coparcener through whom he has acquired the right to challenge the alienation. An after-born coparcener suffers under the same disabilities as those under which the coparcener in existence at the time of alienation suffers and if his right is lost, the right of after-born coparcener is also lost irrespective of his personal disabilities. (Please see. Shri 108 Puja Pad Udit Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Udasi Nirwani v. Surajpal Singh alias Chhedi Singh, AIR 1945 PC 1; Kumaraswami Mudaliar v. Rajamanikkam Udayar, AIR 1966 Ker 266 and Guramma Bharatar Chanbasappa Deshmukh v. Mallappa Chanbasappa, AIR 1964 SC 510.) 16. In Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh (supra), Subba Rao, J. speaking for the Court held that at pages 515 and 516 :- "A coparcener, whether he is natural born or adopted into the family, acquires an interest by birth or adoption, as the case may be, in the ancestral property of the family. A managing member of the family has power to alienate for value joint family property either for family necessity or for the benefit of the estate. An alienation can also be made by a managing member with the consent of all the coparceners of the family. The sole surviving member of a coparcenery has an absolute power to alienate the family property, as at the time of alienation there is no other member who has joint interest in the family. If another member was in existence or in the womb of his mother at the time of the alienation the power of the manager was circumscribed as aforesaid and his alienation would be voidable at the instance of the existing member or the member who was in the womb but was subsequently born, as the case may be, unless, it was made of purposes binding on the members of the family or the existing member consented to it or the subsequent born member ratified it after he attained majority. If another member was conceived in the family or inducted therein by adoption before such consent or ratification, his right to void the alienation will not lie affected. ........ If another member was conceived in the family or inducted therein by adoption before such consent or ratification, his right to void the alienation will not lie affected. ........ In the instance case the impugned alienations were made at a time when the 4th defendant was in the womb, i.e. at a time when Chanbasappa had only a limited right of disposal over the joint family property. The 4th defendant being in the womb, he could not obviously give his consent nor ratify the alienations before the adoption of the 3rd defendant took place and he was inducted in the family. If the alienations were made by the father for a purpose not binding on the estate, they would be voidable at the instance of the 3rd or the 4th defendant." (Emphasis supplied) 17. In view of the settled legal position, both the Courts below have rightly held that though the respondent-plaintiff was an after born coparcener, yet, he had acquired a right to challenge the sales in question through the sons of respondents-defendants Ram Krishan and Sohnu, Chuhru and Dewan Chand, who were admittedly in existence at the time of sales and who had not consented to them till these are challenged by the respondent-plaintiff. 18. In view of the admission of the appellants-defendants that there were coparceners who were in existence and had not consented to the sales, through whom the respondent-plaintiff had acquired his right to challenge the alienations, it was not necessary to implead them as party respondents because they were represented by their fathers who were impleaded as party respondents and had not resisted the suit. In the case of coparcenary property, the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family or the manager of the coparcenary can represent all other members of Joint Hindu Family or coparcenary. It is not necessary to implead all the members of the Joint Hindu Family or coparcenary. In the facts and circumstances of the present case also, the sons of Ram Kishan and Sohnu were not necessary parties and if they were not made party, the suit of the respondent-plaintiff could not fail for want of their impleadment as party. 19. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. Costs on parties. Appeal dismissed.