Judgment ( 1. ) THIS plaintiffs appeal under Section 96, CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-12-1997 passed by the 3rd Additional District judge, Morena, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for declaration that sale deed dated 4-4-91 (Exh. P-9) executed by defendant No. 2 Mulla s/o Gajadhar in favour of defendant No. 1 Trilok Pal Singh for the land in dispute is not binding on the fact and the same be declared void and the plaintiffs along with defendant no. 2 be declared as owner thereof, has been dismissed. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that Gajadhar had two sons, viz. , Mawasi and Mulla. Appellants are sons of Mawasi. Gajadhar is the owner of an area of 5 bigha 2 Biswa in Survey No. 1221, area 5 Bighas 15 Biswas in Survey No. 1222 and 6 Bighas 4 Biswas in Survey No. 1232; total 16 Bighas 1 Biswa. He died in the year 1958. After the death of Gajadhar, the land was recorded jointly in the name of Mawasi Singh and Mulla. Mawasi Singh died in the year 1983. After his death, his two sons stated above succeeded him and the names of defendant no. 2 Mulla and appellants-plaintiffs were jointly recorded in the revenue record as owner of the above land. After Bandobast, Survey Nos. 1221,1222 and 1232 are changed to Survey No. 621. Defendant No. 2 Mulla uncle of the appellants vide registered sale deed dated 4-4-91 transferred the part of the coparcenary property, Le. , 5 Bighas 2 Biswas in favour of Trilok Pal Singh. Defendant No. 2 Mulla executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 Trilok pal Singh for a consideration of Rs. 67,000/ -. The said sale deed has been challenged by the appellants-plaintiffs on the ground inter alia that no partition is taken place between the parties either during the lifetime of Gajadhar, who died in the year 1958 or after the death of Mawasi, who died in the year 1983 and this ancestral property remained joint property of plaintiffs and defendant no. 2. ( 3. ) DEFENDANT Nos. 2. ( 3. ) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and in Para 9 of the written statement, it is admitted that Survey No. 621 area 16 Bighas 1 biswa is an ancestral property and no partition was effected between the defendant No. 2 and the appellants. ( 4. ) APPELLANT No. 2 Atar Singh (P. W. 1) in Para 1 of his statement has deposed that the suit land is their ancestral property. He in Para 6 of his cross-examination admitted that Munni is sister and daughter of Mawasi and after marriage she is residing at Village Chacheha, Tehsil Joura, District morena. D. W. 1 Mulla in Paras 6, 7 and 12 of this cross-examination has admitted that the suit property is an ancestral property and no partition was effected between him and Mawasi. He further deposed that after death of mawasi, he started residing separately, but not partition was effected. He further stated that by registered sale deed dated 4-4-91 Exh. P-19 (Exh. D-1), he executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 and by the said sale deed, he transferred his share to the defendant No. 1. ( 5. ) TRIAL Court by the impugned judgment and decree has held that area of 16 Bighas 1 Biswa land of Survey No. 621 is a coparcenary property and has held that though no partition was effected and the defendant No. 1 was in possession of the half of the land of Survey No. 621, which includes the area for which the sale deed was executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2, but dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendant no. 2 legally transferred the land by executing the registered sale deed on 4-4-91 and the sale deed is legal and binding on the plaintiffs. ( 6. ) THE point of in appeal which goes to the root of the case is that "whether the ancestors immovable property situated in Madhya Bharat erstwhile Region, which is Undivided Hindu Family property, should be sold by coparceners to the extent of his share without getting it partition by metes and bounds ?" ( 7. ( 6. ) THE point of in appeal which goes to the root of the case is that "whether the ancestors immovable property situated in Madhya Bharat erstwhile Region, which is Undivided Hindu Family property, should be sold by coparceners to the extent of his share without getting it partition by metes and bounds ?" ( 7. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants in the plaint very specifically pleaded that in Madhya Bharat including Regions of Gwalior, Banaras School of Mitakshara Law will be applicable and according to Mitakshara Law as administered in Madhya Bharat, no coparceners can alienate even for value his undivided interest without the consent of the other coparceners, unless the alienation be for legal necessity or for payments of antecedents debt by father. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court contrary to law laid down by the Division Bench of this court, Bench Gwalior, in F. A. No. 31/68, passed on 14-12-76, in the case of ramajidas alias Gariba Vs. Ram Kishandas and in F. A. No. 19/74, decided on 15-9-1981, in the case of Shrikrishna Katare Vs. Jagannath Prasad and others, in which it is held that the ancestral property situated in Madhya Bharat Regions cannot be transferred by one out of several coparceners and such transfer is void even to the extend of share transferee. ( 8. ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramdayal vs. Manaklal, 1973 JLJ 764 , and in the case of Smt. Krishna Bai Vs. Shivnath singh, 1992 (2) MPJR 245, the Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs, and by reasons of the provisions of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, one of the co-owner is legally competent to transfer the undivided share and therefore the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 9. ) THE Full Bench of this Court in the case of Diwan Singh Harnam singh Vs. Bhaiya Lal, 1997 (2) MPLJ 202 , has held that Banaras School Hindu mitakshara Law was applicable to the State of Madhya Bharat. ( 9. ) THE Full Bench of this Court in the case of Diwan Singh Harnam singh Vs. Bhaiya Lal, 1997 (2) MPLJ 202 , has held that Banaras School Hindu mitakshara Law was applicable to the State of Madhya Bharat. It is not pointed out that Morena was a part of the Erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat and therefore a coparcener governed by that School of Hindu Law could not alienate his undivided interest in the coparcenery property without the consent of other coparceners and if he does so, the sale is voidable at the instance of non-alienating coparceners. Paragraphs 7 to 11 of the Full Bench decision in the case of Diwan Singh Vs. Bhaiyalal (supra), read as under:-"7. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that Bombay School of mitakshara Hindu Law can be said to have been held applicable only to a section of a population or Hindus in erstwhile Central provinces and Berar but the said Bombay School was not applicable to other integrating units of Madhya Bharat such as Vindya Pradesh and Madhya Bharat including regions of Gwalior and Indore. To the regions other hand Central Provinces, Banaras School of Hindu law as applicable and that has been settled by a long series of decisions in cases emanating from those regions. 8. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramdayals case (supra), came up for consideration before two Division Benches of this court. In F. A. No. 31/68, decided on 14-12-1976 (at Gwalior Bench of this Court) Honble Shri Justice J. S. Verma (as to then was) was a party so was he to the Full Bench case of Ramdayal (supra ). In f. A. No. 31/68, decided on 14-12-1976 the Full Bench decision in the case of Ramdayal (supra), was explained as under:-"shri Gupta relied on some observations in the Full Bench decision in Ramdayals case (supra) to contend that according to the mitakshara law, as administered in whole of the State of Madhya pradesh, a coparcener my alienate for value his undivided interest in the coparcenary so that the sale is not void and the purchaser gets the share of his vendor. This is not a point decided by the Full Bench and observations to that effect in Para 3 of the judgment are merely a general statement of the law applicable to formation of the new state on Re-organization of States. There can be no doubt that to some part of the new State of Madhya Pradesh the Banaras School of Mitakshara law applies and the general statement made in the full Bench decision does not refer to those parts. In the present case itself, in the earlier suit there was no dispute between the parties that the Banaras School of Mitakshara law applied to them and it was on that basis that the suit was decided and the alienation by an undivided coparcener was held to be void. Those observations in the Full Bench decision have, therefore, to be read confined only to that part of Madhya Pradesh where the Bombay School of mitakshara law is applicable and not to those portions of the new state of Madhya Pradesh where the Banaras school applies. " 9. In applying the Banaras School of Hindu Law to the parties residing in erstwhile Madhya Bharat region, in another Division bench decision rendered by this Court at Gwalior Bench in F. A. No. 19/74, decided on 15-9-1981 the Full Bench decision in ramdayals case (supra), was distinguished on the same ground by quoting the above observations made in the earlier Division benchs case of Gwalior Bench. ( 10. ) THE above mentioned two Division Bench decisions, followed by the Full Bench decision of this Court ought to have been regarded as constituting sufficient ground for the learned Single judge for proceeding to decide the case on merits instead of making a reference to a Larger Bench of this Court. ( 11. ) IN our considered opinion, the above quoted observations made by the Division Bench at Gwalior in F. A. No. 3j/68, decided on 14-12-1976 clear all doubts, if any, created by the decision of Full bench with regard to the applicability of a particular School of hindu Law to different integrating States or Regions of the newly formed State of Madhya Pradesh. In our opinion the question of applicability of a particular School of Hindu Law to particular parties before the Court would depend upon the pleadings and the facts and circumstances found in each case. In our opinion the question of applicability of a particular School of Hindu Law to particular parties before the Court would depend upon the pleadings and the facts and circumstances found in each case. There cannot be any general statement of law on that subject with regard to the particular region of State of Madhya Pradesh. In answer to the two questions referred to us, it would suffice for us to answer them relying on the decision of the Division Bench rendered in F. A. No. 31/68, decided on 14-12-1976 and reiterate the observations made therein that the Full Bench case of Ramdayal (supra), does not hold as applicable Bombay School of Mitakshara Hindu Law to all the erstwhile integrating States and regions forming part of the new state of Madhya Pradesh. The question of applicability of a particular school or branch of Hindu Law would have to be decided on the basis of pleadings and evidence led by the parties in each individual case. " 10. In the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. State of M. P. and another, 2001 (I)MPJR 113, it has been held that alienation of Joint Hindu Family property without the consent of coparceners by execution of the sale deed is void in areas governed by Mitakshara Law School Banaras. In the case of Smt. Krishna Bai Vs. Shivnath Singh, 1992 (2) MPJR 245, it is held that undivided interest of coparcenary property cannot be alienated. 11. It is well settled that co-owner has a right to alienate his undivided interest in the Joint Family Property, but cannot alienate any specific property belonging to the coparcenary on the basis of such interest as without partition, no co-owner can claim any such property as his own. ( 12. ) IN the instant case, it is not the stand of the respondent No. 1 that defendant No. 2 Mulla sold the joint coparcenary property to the respondent no. 1 Trilok Pal Singh for any legal necessity or for payment of antecedents debt by father. ( 13. ( 12. ) IN the instant case, it is not the stand of the respondent No. 1 that defendant No. 2 Mulla sold the joint coparcenary property to the respondent no. 1 Trilok Pal Singh for any legal necessity or for payment of antecedents debt by father. ( 13. ) FROM the discussion above, the legal position that emerges is that in the instant case, the suit property situated in Village Ummedgarhvasi, Tehsil jaura, District Morena, is an admittedly the part of the Erstwhile Madhya bharat Regions and, therefore, according to Mitakshara Hindu Law, which is, as stated, still applicable in that Region, and the parties are governed by it, the defendant No. 2 deceased Mulla had no right to alienate the coparcenary undivided interest without the consent of the appellants and thus the sale deed dated 4-4-1991 (Exh. P-9) is void. ( 14. ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed with costs, setting aside the judgment and decree impugned. Counsels fee, according to Schedule, if certified.