MAJAGE, J. ( 1 ) THE question of law for consideration in this appeal is:whether the 2nd alienee (plaintiff) is entitled to an equitable remedy of allotment of share of the alienating vendor, the member of the joint family after a decree is passed holding that the alienation does not bind the non-alienating coparceners?. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts, which gave rise to the said question of law, are: (A) The appellant, who was plaintiff in O. S. No. 28/77 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Haveri, brought suit for general and equitable partition between defendants 2 to 5 with a further prayer that, in the said partition, A schedule properties be allotted to the share of 2nd defendant and if A schedule properties are not allotted to the share of 2nd defendant, 1st and 2nd defendant to be ordered to pay Rs. 8,800/- as damages and compensation to him and account be taken from them for the amount due to him stating that the suit A and B schedules are the properties of Joint Hindu family of defendants No. 2 to 5, of which, 2nd defendant is the Manager whereas, 1st defendant was in possession of A schedule properties as lessee but, as the cultivation and maintenance of said lands was a burden to said joint family, 2nd defendant as head of that family sold the same to first defendent for consideration of Rs. 3,800/- which, of course, came to be challenged by defendant No. 5 as guardian of defendants 3 and 4, who are none other than the sons of 2nd defendant, alleging that the said sale was without consideration and made by 2nd defendant, when he was not mentally sound, and that suit (O. S. No. 14/73) came to be decreed holding that said sale to the extent of the share of defendants No. 3 and 4, is not valid and not binding on their share and the plaintiff has been directed to file a general suit for partition for allotting said A schedule properties to the share of 2nd defendant and till then, the decree passed in o. S. No. 14/73, for giving possession to defendants 3 and 4 by him, has been stayed for a period of six months and accordingly, he brought suit claiming share to the 2nd defendant and allotting A schedule properties to the share of 2nd defendant in general partition with other reliefs as noted already. (B) 1st defendant neither filed any written statement nor contested the claim of plaintiff. However, the 2nd defendant filed written statement stating that, though the defendant No. 5 is the wife and defendants 3 and 4 are his sons, there is no joint family nor joint family property between defendants 2 to 5 on account of partition made in year 1966 and as such, he had ceased to be the Manager of that joint family and hence, the defendant No. 5, as guardian of minor defendant 3 and 4, is looking after their interest. Further, the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 14/73 binds the parties on the principles of res-judicata and estoppel and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4th share only in suit A schedule properties and not as claimed by him since he is not entitled under law and equity to have the suit A schedule lands allotted to the share of 2nd defendant and deprive defendants 3 and 4 from their legitimate share in those properties and, at any rate, as per the said judgment and decree, defendants 3 to 5 are entitled to their legitimate 3/4th share in said A schedule lands and not half share as pleaded by plaintiff and, in the circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to have damages, that too, to the extent claimed when he (2nd defendant) had received Rs. 3,800/- only from 1st defendant at the time of sale of said lands and in any event, he is not at all liable to pay rs. 8,800/- claimed by plaintiff and consequently, the relief of taking account does not arise and thus, requested to dismiss the suit. (C) Defendants 3 to 5 filed joint written statement, admitting relationship between them and 2nd defendant besides judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 14/73, but put the plaintiff to strict proof of other averments. According to them, as per said judgment, 2nd defendant has 1/4h share in the family properties and as such, the plaintiff cannot have relief claimed, more so, when the sale made with regard to said lands to the extent of their shares has been setaside and not binding on them when, in fact, there is no cause of action against them for the suit and if they have been impleaded as formal parties, they are not liable to pay cost of suit and thus, they also requested to dismiss the claim of plaintiff. (D) The plaintiff examined himself and a witness and got marked 107 documents in support of his claim whereas, among defendants, 2nd defendant alone has been examined without getting any document marked for them. On the evidence adduced by the parties, after hearing argument, the Trial Court answered following issue No. 1 in negative and so also issue No. 2 in view of answer to issue No. 3 which has been answered holding that 1st defendant should pay rs. 10,350. 75 ps. On the evidence adduced by the parties, after hearing argument, the Trial Court answered following issue No. 1 in negative and so also issue No. 2 in view of answer to issue No. 3 which has been answered holding that 1st defendant should pay rs. 10,350. 75 ps. whereas, 2nd defendant should pay Rs. 2,850/- but, for accounts it has been answered in negative and accordingly, issue No. 4 has been answered and thus, suit of plaintiff came to be decreed in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled to have compensation, as indicated above without any account and 1/4th share in land Sy. Nos. 31/2 and 32/1 of Nellibeedu Village, being the share of 2nd defendant whereas, defendants 3 to 5 have 1/4th share each in them and consequently, plaintiff shall take suitable steps in that regard to get his share in partition by metes and bounds and deliver remaining 3/4th share in the said lands to defendant 3 to 5 as per the decision in O. S. No. 14/73 and dismiss the claim of plaintiff for allotment of suit lands to the share of 2nd defendant in the family properties on the ground that the plaintiff, being an alienee from an alienee of a coparcener, is not entitled to such relief under equity:1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the suit properties that were purchased by defendant No. 1 subsequently sold to him can be allotted to the share of defendant No. 2 in general and equitable partition?2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 8,000/- as compensation and damages from defendants 1 and 2?3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for accounting and for what amount, and from which of the defendants?4. What order? What Decree? (E) Aggrieved by it, the plaintiff approached the 1st Appellate court-II Addl. District Judge Court at Dharwad in R. A. No. 8/91, which was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Thus, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of second appeal with substantial question of law, noted already. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. District Judge Court at Dharwad in R. A. No. 8/91, which was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Thus, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of second appeal with substantial question of law, noted already. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. It is submitted for the appellant-plaintiff that the Trial Court committed an error in holding that the plaintiff, being an alienee of an alienee of a coparcener or a member of joint family, is not entitled to have decree in his favour though decision in the case of BASAVANAPPA vs GURAPPA ankalkoti and OTHERS and K. PERAMANAYAKAM PILLAI vs s. T. SIVARAMAN and ANOTHER which is full Bench decision, support his case to have a decree in his favour as prayed for. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the contesting defendants strongly relied on Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of EDE CHINA GURUNADHAM and OTHERS vs. PALAKURTHI venkatarao AND OTHERS in support of the judgment and decrees. Perused the records carefully. ( 4 ) THE facts, which are not in dispute now, are: The family of defendants 2 to 5, which consists of 2nd defendant as the father of defendants 3 and 4 and husband of defendant No. 5 was held to be a joint family with joint family, properties, having hundreds of acres to that family, as evidenced by records at Ex. P. 1 to P. 98. Of course, their stand in O. S. No. 14/73 that there was a partition in their family in the year 1966 and thereafter 2nd defendant ceased to be the head of that joint family, has been negatived. It was also held in that suit that, there was passing of consideration to 2nd defendant by 1st defendant for the sale made on 1. 2. 1967 as per Ex. p. 100, for rs. 3,800/ -. but held that it was not for family or legal necessities of joint family and consequently, defendants 3 and 4 were not bound by that sale and thus, the share of defendants 3 and 4 in suit A schedule properties was held to have not been affected. However, it was held that 1st defendant was in possession of the said A schedule lands as a tenant for a period of about 11 years earlier to the said sale. However, it was held that 1st defendant was in possession of the said A schedule lands as a tenant for a period of about 11 years earlier to the said sale. Of course, the plaintiff was held not a bonafide purchaser of the said lands for consideration with notice on the ground that the sale deed in favour of 1st defendant itself disclosed that defendants 3 and 4 had share in the said lands and not that he had not paid consideration to 1st defendant. But, under the said decree, the present plaintiff was given liberty to file suit for general partition of the family properties of defendants 2 to 5 between those defendant and claim reliefs. Accordingly, he brought suit but unsuccessful in the Trial Court and also in the 1st Appellate Court. So, this appeal. ( 5 ) AT the outset, it may be noted that, if the 1st defendant had not sold property to plaintiff and had brought a suit for partition, he would have been entitled to claim equities and, in that, to get the properties purchased ( A schedule properties) allotted to his share as far as possible subject to equities. ( 6 ) IT is on record that the family of defendant 2 to 5 owns hundreds of acres of lands, as evidenced by records at Ex. P. 1 to 98. In fact, admittedly it had more than 600 acres land. Of course, it appears that most of those lands are tenanted. Be that as it may, the suit A schedule lands were also tenanted lands in possession of the 1st defendant only from the year 1956 and thus, he was in possession of those lands as a tenant till 1. 2. 1967, on which date he purchased the same under registered sale deed for Rs. 3,800/- as per Ex. p-100. It appears that 2nd defendant did not think it worth to retain the said lands with the family, because the actual possession 1. ILR 1999 KAR 3994 2. AIR 1952 MADRAS 419 3. AIR 1959 AP 523 was with the tenant namely, 1st defendant and during that period of the year 1967, Land Reforms Act had already been introduced on 13. 9. 1965 and probably, for that reason, the 2nd defendant, who is not a rustic villager but a teacher and M. Sc. ILR 1999 KAR 3994 2. AIR 1952 MADRAS 419 3. AIR 1959 AP 523 was with the tenant namely, 1st defendant and during that period of the year 1967, Land Reforms Act had already been introduced on 13. 9. 1965 and probably, for that reason, the 2nd defendant, who is not a rustic villager but a teacher and M. Sc. degree holder thought it wise to dispose of the same in favour of tenant for Rs. 3,800/- and willingly sold the same to 1st defendant. It the 1st defendant had not purchased the said lands, like other tenants in possession of tenanted lands as on 31. 3. 1974, he would have been conferred with occupancy rights, if applied. Of course, as on the date 31. 3. 1974, 1st defendant could not have claimed tenancy rights, since he had become owner by virtue of sale deed in the year 1967 and had already parted with its possession in favour of plaintiff on 9. 2. 1973, when he sold the said lands to plaintiff under Ex. P. 101 along with some other property for Rs. 18,101/ -. ( 7 ) IT is also pertinent to note that defendants 3 and 4, who did not take any action for a period of 6 years to challenge the sale dated 1. 2. 1967 made in favour of 1st defendant by 2nddefendant, wokeup immediately as soon as the sale was made in favour of plaintiff by 1st defendant on 9. 2. 1973, which is clear from the fact that o. S. No. 14/73 came to be filed on 11. 4. 1973 itself, taking various contentions, which have been negatived by the Court, though set-aside the sale only to the extent of their shares in the properties. It is not that the plaintiff purchased the said lands after O. S. No. 14/ 73 was filed, but that suit came to be filed in no time after sale was made in favour of plaintiff by 1st defendant, which aspect of the matter also cannot be ignored. It may also be noted that passing of consideration to the 1st defendant from plaintiff nor possession with the plaintiff had not been negatived in that suit. It may also be noted that passing of consideration to the 1st defendant from plaintiff nor possession with the plaintiff had not been negatived in that suit. The very fact that the lands came to be sold for consideration, which was five times more the sale consideration paid to 2nd defendant by 1st defendant in 1967 (though sale in favour of plaintiff has within about 6 years time only) lends support to what has been observed already that the purpose behind the sale of said properties in favour of 1st defendant by 2nd defendant might be to have Rs. 3,800/- instead of not getting anything by lapse of time as not in possession/enjoyment of those lands admittedly and under tenancy law, lands would not have gone back to their family when admitted possession and large extent of lands held by that family are considered. ( 8 ) IT is also equally important to note that except 2nd defendant, no other person has stepped into the witness box even as witness, though 2nd defendant has alleged that allotment of A schedule lands to his share will deprive the legitimate share of defendants 3 to 5 but, the same was not even contended by defendants 3 to 5 in their written statement. That apart, it is not stated either in the pleading or in his evidence by the 2nd defendant-D. W. 1 that how the allotment of A schedule lands to him in the partition between him and defendants 3 to 5 with regard to family lands consisting of hundreds of acres, will deprive defendants 3 to 5 of their legitimate share in A schedule properties only. ( 9 ) INCIDENTALLY, it may also be noted that defendants 2 to 5 reside in the same house at Haveri though, according to 2nd defendant, he resides in a room of that house and defendants 3 to 5 reside in rest of the house. It is also on record that village Nellibeedu, where the lands are situated is away from Haveri at a distance of 13 miles, which will be more than 20 Kms. It is not that, defendants 2 to 5 or any of them has any house property or agricultural establishment at nellibeedu. All these facts also come in favour of plaintiff for relief claimed by him. It is not that, defendants 2 to 5 or any of them has any house property or agricultural establishment at nellibeedu. All these facts also come in favour of plaintiff for relief claimed by him. ( 10 ) INSPITE of said material and circumstances favourable to plaintiff, the Trial Court considered the only point namely, whether the plaintiff, being an alienee from an alienee of the joint family property, could get the relief claimed by him for allotment of A schedule properties to the share of 2nd defendant so as to get the same to his share in such general partition between defendants 2 to 5, and recorded finding against the plaintiff in view of the Full bench decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (supra ). Correctness of the said finding is involved in this appeal. ( 11 ) IT is pertinent to note that, in the said Full Bench decision, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has relied on the three decisions of Madras High Court to hold that an alienee of an alienee of coparcener has no equity to claim purchased property by bringing suit for general partition. So, it will be useful to consider those three decisions. ( 12 ) THE first decision is decision in the case of Sabhapathy Pillai (AIR 1920 Madras 316) was concerned with a suit by an alienee from a Court auction purchaser of a coparcener s property for recovery of specific items of property allotted at the partition between the coparceners themselves in the place of items purchased by him and it has not dealt with a suit for general partition instituted by an alienee from an alienee of a coparcener. In the case of DHADHA SAHIB vs MUHAMMAD SULTAN sahib , Court did not deal with a suit for partition filed by an alienee of the alienee from a Hindu coparcener, and that case was also concerned with a suit filed by an alienee of an alienee for recovery of specific items of property allotted to the share of the alienating coparcener, which were different from what he had sold. Thus, said two decisions were not clearly on the proposition that, the right, which is available to an alienee to file a suit for general partition, is not available to the alienee s alienee nor there are any observations in the said two judgments from which such a conclusion can even be inferred. In the case of PETRUSUBBAIH vs. PALAPARTHI venkateswara, Horwill J. , appears to have assumed that earlier two decision (AIR 1920 Madras 316 and AIR 1921 Madras 384) proceeded on the basis that the relationship between an alienee and his alienee was that of a vendor and purchaser under the transfer of Property Act and that equitable right to demand partition recognised in an alienee would not be available to his alienee. That apart, Horwill J. , has not given any reason whatsoever for coming to said conclusion. ( 13 ) IN fact, in the case of SETHU RAMALINGA MENATTARAYAR vs VEERASWAMI CHETTIAR and OTHERS a learned Judge of the high Court of Madras has also done the said exercise and after considering said decision in detail, has expressed a dissenting view to that Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court. ( 14 ) FURTHER, while referring the Full Bench decision of Madras high Court (supra), the learned Single Judge observed as under:this observations of four out of the learned Judges of this court, who constituted the Full Bench, clearly show that the right which an alienee acquires from a Hindu coparcener is a tangible vested right in property and it is also a transferable right. If that right is transferable, I am unable to find anything in law or logic to hold that the transferee will not be able to exercise the right which the transferor could have exercised. To say that a particular right is transferable and at the same time to deny the transferee the remedy available to the transferor is merely to negative the transferable character of the right itself, as a matter of fact, such a position will be ever self-contradictory. I am of the opinion that, that is not the position of law and this is the view that has been taken by Veeraswami. J. , (as he then was) in S. A. No. 272 of 1959 (Mad ). I am of the opinion that, that is not the position of law and this is the view that has been taken by Veeraswami. J. , (as he then was) in S. A. No. 272 of 1959 (Mad ). ( 15 ) ACCORDING to the said learned Single Judge:the real distinction lies in the fact that in one case the alienee from an alienee standing in the shoes of his alienor, files a suit for general partition and in such a suit prays for the allotment of the specific item of the property to the share of the alienating coparcener, if that were possible, taking into consideration the interests of the other coparceners, and in the other case, dealt with by ILR 43 Mad 309 = (AIR 1920 Mad 316) and ILR 44 Mad 167= (AIR 1921 Mad 384) the suit is instituted by the second alienee against the alienating coparcener for recovery of a specific item of property which he did not bargin for, but which was allotted to the share of the alienating coparcener, in the place of the particular item of property which the second alienee had purchased. ( 16 ) IN the ultimate analysis, the learned Single Judge concluded as under:on Authority and on principle, I am unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judges of the Andhra pradesh High Court in the Full Bench decision referred to above, and I hold that an alienee from the alienee of a Hindu coparcener standing in the shoes of his alienor is entitled to file a suit for general partition impleading all the coparceners in the partition suit and praying for the allotment of the specific item of the property purchased by him to the share of the alienating coparcener, if that were possible taking into consideration the interests of other coparceners. 4. AIR 1921 MADRAS 384 5. AIR 1948 MADRAS 468 6. AIR 1971 MADRAS 174 ( 17 ) HOWEVER, no further elaborate discussion is necessary to record a finding on the point under consideration. This is because in the case of K. ADIVI NAIDU and OTHERS vs. E. DURUVASULU naidu and OTHERS ,the Supreme Court has held as under:it is well settled law that alienees of the alinees have no right to equities. This is because in the case of K. ADIVI NAIDU and OTHERS vs. E. DURUVASULU naidu and OTHERS ,the Supreme Court has held as under:it is well settled law that alienees of the alinees have no right to equities. Since the said decision of the Supreme Court lends support to the full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court and binding on all the Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution, no contra view can be taken by this Court and as such, no more discussion is necessary to answer the question of law in negative. ( 18 ) OF course, in the case of K. Adivi Naidu (supra), the Supreme court granted relief to the alienee of the alienee in the facts of that case, as can be seen from what has been extracted below, though, held as settled law that alienee of the alienee has no right to equities:5. Since the specific properties were purchased prior to the institution of the suit for partition, though the appellants have no right to equities, it could be said that the respective share to which their principal alienor was entitled would be allottable to them as a special case. However, since the preliminary decree specifically directed that the good and bad qualities of the land should be taken into consideration in effecting the partition, it should, in letter and spirit, be given effect to. While passing final decree, if the lands purchased by the appellants are found more valuable than the lands to be allotted to the respondents, the respective values thereof should be ascertained and the respondents need to be compensated in monetary value. That would be the effect of the preliminary decree as well. Considered from this perspective, the direction issued by the Division Bench would be modified as above, and the trial Court would pass the final decree accordingly. (underline supplied) ( 19 ) THE present case stands on a better footing than that of the case of K. Adivi Naidu (supra) decided by the Supreme Court. But, this Court cannot grant relief to plaintiff, when substantial question of law raised has been answered in negative. So, inspite of said material available in favour of plaintiff, he cannot be granted equitable relief. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No cost. --- *** --- .