JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs 3 and 5 in O.S.No.645 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Erode are the appellants herein. The appellants herein along with two of their brothers were brought on record in the suit as plaintiffs, since their father one Kuppusamy Mudaliar, the original plaintiff died, pending suit. The suit has been filed for partition and separate possession of their 1/28th share in the suit properties. Their case is the said Kuppusamy Mudaliar purchased the property from one Annamalai Mudaliar, who is the husband of the seventh defendant in the suit and the father of the defendants 8 to 12. The said Annamalai Mudaliar purchased the first item of plaint schedule property as early as 3.3.1956 in auction sale in I.P.No.67 of 1953. The defendants 1 to 6 filed the suit O.S.No.578 of 1970 claiming that the said property is the joint family property of Annamalai Mudaliar and the first defendant and as such the alienation in favour of the original plaintiff in respect of 6/7th share will not be binding on the defendants 1 to 6. The said suit was decreed. Hence the present suit for general partition had been filed. 2. The claim of the plaintiffs in the suit was disputed by the defendants stating that the original plaintiff purchased item 1 of the suit property as that of the separate property of Annamalai Mudaliar. Hence it is not open to the plaintiffs to seek for the general partition in respect of the joint family property. It is open to the plaintiffs to have 1/28th share in item 1 of the plaint schedule property alone. 3. After going through the evidence let in by both the parties, the learned District Munsif by his judgment and decree dated 13.1.1984 decreed the suit only in respect of item 1 of the plaint schedule property and granted a preliminary decree thereof. 4. As against the same, the appellants herein along with one other brother filed the appeal A.S.No.9 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed. 5. 4. As against the same, the appellants herein along with one other brother filed the appeal A.S.No.9 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed. 5. At the time of admission of the second appeal the following substantial question of law was formulated: “Have not the Courts below erred in law, even assuming for a moment without admitting that the plaintiff is not entitled to any equity, in allotting 1/28th share only in item 1 instead of allotting 1/28th share in all the suit items in which the plaintiffs vendor had a share.” 6. The only question arises for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to seek for general partition in respect of the joint family property belonging to Annamalai Mudaliar and his coparceners or whether the appellants are entitled to the share of Annamalai Mudaliar in item 1 alone. 7. There is not much controversy on the fact that the original plaintiff purchased the property from Annamalai Mudaliar who purchased the same in auction sale by the Official Receiver. The first defendant and his legal representatives claimed that item 1 of the plaint schedule is the joint family property and obtained a decree in the earlier suit. 8. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that when once it is held that the property purchased by the appellants is one of the items of the joint family property under the sale deed executed by one of the coparceners, the appellants have purchased the undivided share of their vendor in the joint family property. Hence, the appellants are entitled to file a suit for general partition when other properties of the joint family are available. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellants had purchased item 1 of the plaint schedule property as that of the separate property of Annamalai Mudaliar. When the appellants have purchased a particular item of the joint family property from one of the coparceners, the appellants are entitled only for the share of their vendor in the property purchased by them and it is not open to them to seek for a general partition. 10. This Court carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. When the appellants have purchased a particular item of the joint family property from one of the coparceners, the appellants are entitled only for the share of their vendor in the property purchased by them and it is not open to them to seek for a general partition. 10. This Court carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. When the property purchased by the appellants held to be the joint family property under the earlier proceedings, then it has to be held that item 1 of the plaint schedule property is the joint family property belonging to the vendor of the plaintiffs and their coparceners. Hence, there cannot be any dispute that the appellants have purchased a portion of the undivided share of the coparcener. Even though the appellants purchased item 1 of the plaint schedule property as that of the separate property of their vendor, in the auction by the Official Receiver when it has been found that it is joint family property, then the appellants are entitled to sue for general partition, claiming equity of allotment of that particular property to their share. In case, if the Court finds that the said property cannot be allotted to the appellants on the principles of equity, then it is for the Court to allot some other property to the share of their vendor so that the appellants can get the equal extent of the property purchased by the original plaintiff. 11. This principle is very clear from the judgment of this Court in Subbiah v. Venkateswarlu, (1948)1 M.L.J. 478 : A.I.R. 1948 Mad. 468, wherein it has been held as follows: “On the findings of fact, the appellant and respondent 1 were clearly not co-owners. The father did not purport to convey his share of the property, but the whole of a particular item. That would not have entitled the vendee to a half share in that particular item. It would merely have given him an equitable right to sue for a general partition and to pray that, if possible, that particular item of property might be allotted to him in the partition, and if not, that he might be given some other property instead.” 12. Similarly the Bombay High Court laid down in Bhau v. Budha Manaku, I.L.R. 50 Bom. Similarly the Bombay High Court laid down in Bhau v. Budha Manaku, I.L.R. 50 Bom. 204, three principles as regards the rights and remedies of alienees and coparceners which are as follows: (1) A stranger purchaser of the undivided share of a coparcener in a joint Hindu family if out of possession should not be given joint possession with the other coparceners but should be left to his remedy of a suit for partition. (2) On the other hand, coparcener who has been excluded, may obtain joint possession with such a purchaser, who has obtained possession of the joint family property. (3) The purchaser in possession need not be ejected in a suit for recovery of possession brought by an excluded coparcener, but can be declared to be entitled to hold (pending a partition) as a tenant-in-common with the other coparceners. 13. From the above laid principle also it is clear that the purchaser of a particular item of the joint family property from one of the coparceners is entitled to seek for the general partition and allotment of that particular item on the principles of equity. In view of the above well laid principles, the judgment and decree of the Courts below cannot be sustained. 14. Accordingly the second appeal is allowed. There will be a preliminary decree in favour of the appellants in respect of 1/28th share of all the plaint schedule properties restricted to the total extent of item 1 of plaint schedule. During the final decree proceeding, it is open to the appellants to claim the right of equity for the allotment of item 1 of the plaint schedule property in their favour which the trial Court may consider in accordance with law. No cost.