Judgment K.A. Puj, J.—The appellants/original plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge, Palanpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 12/1977 passed on 10.09.1979, quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (JD), Palanpur on 11.01.1977 in Regular Civil Suit No. 96/66. The learned District Judge has, however, modified the decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (JD), Palanpur, to the extent that the plaintiffs were entitled for recovery for joint possession in respect of the suit fields, except Survey No. 284/4, admeasuring 1 Acre, 11 Gunthas, Survey No. 292/2, admeasuring 4 Acres, 20 Gunthas and Survey No. 293/3, admeasuring 1 Acre, 11 Gunthas, against the defendant No. 4 and the heirs of defendant No. 3. 2. This Second Appeal was admitted and following substantial questions of law were framed by the Court: (i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in ordering that the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for joint possession in respect of the suit fields, except Survey No. 284/4, admeasuring 1 Acre, 11 Gunthas, Survey No. 292/2, admeasuring 4 Acres, 20 Gunthas and Survey No. 293/3 admeasuring 1 Acre, 11 Gunthas against the defendant No. 4 and the heirs of defendant No. 3 ? (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in not granting the absolute possession and/or partition of all the suit properties or the all suit properties except Survey No. 284/4 admeasuring 1 Acre, 11 Gunthas, Survey No. 292/2 admeasuring 4 Acres, 20 Gunthas and Survey No. 293/3 admeasuring 1 Acre, 11 Gunthas ? (iii) Has the Lower Appellate Court erred in determining the rights of non-alienating coparceners in light of the principles enumerated by Mullas on Hindu law in view of the special facts and circumstances of the present case ? (iv) Has the Lower Court erred in law in not holding that the order, Ex. 143, dated 13.11.1975 passed by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. is a nullity or void ab-initio ? 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under : 3.1. (iv) Has the Lower Court erred in law in not holding that the order, Ex. 143, dated 13.11.1975 passed by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. is a nullity or void ab-initio ? 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under : 3.1. The appellants/original plaintiffs have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 96/66 against the respondents for possession of the suit fields, or in the alternative they claimed a decree for partition to the extent of their 3/5 share in the suit field for mesne profits. The appellants alleged in the suit that though the suit properties were of Hindu Undivided Family, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the coparceners of the said H.U.F. sold the said properties to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. The said transactions were illegal and without authority. 3.2. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in their written statement contended that the suit fields did not belong to the plaintiffs. They have not denied the facts of purchasing suit fields from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It appeared to the appellants that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sold the suit fields to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by describing themselves as absolute owners of the suit fields. It is however, say of the appellants that as per the plaint, the respondent No. 4 had purchased lands, bearing Survey Nos. 283/2, 284/4, 292/2 and 293/3, whereas according to Ex-143-the order of the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., the respondent No. 4 was held to be a tenant in respect of lands bearing Survey Nos. 284/4, 292/2 and 293/3. Thus, it would be clear that the respondent No. 4 had not been declared as a tenant in respect of land bearing Survey No. 283/2. Therefore, full possession of Survey No. 283/2 should have been given to the appellants. It is also the say of the appellants that the respondent No. 3 and/or his legal heirs were not and are not the tenant/s of suit field purchased by the respondent No. 3 and hence the appellants ought to have been given possession of. 3.3. The said suit was decided by the learned Joint Civil Judge (JD), Palanpur, by his judgment and decree for eviction of the suit land as prayed for in Para 18 (1) of the plaint by the plaintiffs from the heirs of defendant Nos. 3.3. The said suit was decided by the learned Joint Civil Judge (JD), Palanpur, by his judgment and decree for eviction of the suit land as prayed for in Para 18 (1) of the plaint by the plaintiffs from the heirs of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and heirs of defendant No. 3 and the defendant No. 4 himself were directed to deliver the possession of suit land to the plaintiffs with future mesne profits from the date of the suit till the delivery of possession. They were further directed that the heirs of defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4 himself shall pay costs of the suit to the plaintiffs and shall bear their own costs and there was no order as to costs for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 3.4. The heirs of the defendants No. 3 and defendant No. 4 himself have challenged the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court in appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which appeal was partly allowed. 4. Mr. S.S. Belsare, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the defendant No. 4 was declared as tenant of lands bearing Survey No. 284/4, 292/2 and 1 Acre, 11 Gunthas of Survey No. 293/3. He has no tenancy rights in respect of Survey No. 283/2, therefore, the appellants should have been given full possession of Survey No. 283/2. He has further submitted that the defendant No. 3 had no tenancy right in respect of land admeasuring 1 Acre and 3 Gunthas of Survey No. 293/3 and therefore the plaintiffs ought to have been given full possession of the said land. The plaintiffs should have been given full possession of the Survey No. 285/1 which has not been discussed at all by the Lower Appellate Court. He has further submitted that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold a suit field by describing them as full owners, though they were not. Therefore, it ought to have been held that the said transactions were unauthorized, illegal and also fraudulent. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court ought to have held that the plaintiffs were entitled to complete possession of suit fields. Mr. Belsare further submitted that the appellants/original plaintiffs have 3/5 share in the suit fields. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had individually only 1/5 share in the suit fields and they were strangers to the family of the appellants. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court ought to have held that the plaintiffs were entitled to complete possession of suit fields. Mr. Belsare further submitted that the appellants/original plaintiffs have 3/5 share in the suit fields. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had individually only 1/5 share in the suit fields and they were strangers to the family of the appellants. Therefore, Lower Appellate Court should have given full possession of all the suit fields except the fields in respect of which defendant No. 4 is held to be a tenant. He has further submitted that the joint possession of the agricultural lands creates the problems of cultivation, production and distribution and, therefore, the Lower Appellate Court should have held that the plaintiffs were entitled to complete possession of suit fields. Mr. Belsare further submitted that a stranger purchasing a share of a coparcener from H.U.F. Property, is not entitled to partition in a suit by unalienating coparcener but an unalienating coparcener is definitely entitled to possession and/or partition. The Lower Appellate Court should have held that in law and in equity the plaintiffs were and are entitled to absolute possession and/or partition in respect of the suit field. He has further submitted that sale of suit fields were illegal and hence the free possession of suit fields should have been given to the plaintiffs by returning the sale-deed amounts etc. to the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 or the plaintiffs should have been given their shares in all suit fields after partitioning them. 5. Though Mr. Jitendra M. Patel has filed appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, no submissions were made on their behalf, they have not even filed Civil Appeal against the judgment and decree of Trial Court. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and the documents produced on record as well as having gone through the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, the Court is of the view that the Lower Appellate Court has discussed the controversy between the parties at great length and arrived at the conclusion that the Court, in the suit by non-alienating coparcener, for possession, may not eject the purchaser when he has been in possession of the suit land since long, but may allow him to continue in possession with the other coperceners. If the case is one in which joint possession is allowed the proper decree that may be based is one placing the plaintiffs in joint possession with the defendant purchaser. In view of the fact that the defendant No. 4 is held to be a tenant in respect of the fields bearing Survey No. 284/4, admeasuring 1 Acre 11 Gunthas, Survey No. 292/2, admeaduring 4 Acres 20 Gunthas and Survey No. 293/3, admeasuring 1 Acre 11 Gunthas, by virtue of the decision arrived at by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. Palanpur, the same is held to be legal, valid and conclusive as no appeal or revision is filed by the same plaintiffs. No decree of ejection can be passed against the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in respect thereof. The decree directing the eviction of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 is, therefore, rightly held to be bad in law and set aside by the learned District Judge. The plaintiff No. 1, his minor son and his wife, being non-alienating coparceners, however, are entitled to joint possession. 7. In the above view of the matter and looking to the finding recorded by the learned District Judge, the Court does not think it fit and proper to interfere in the said judgment and decree and hence this Second Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Parties will bear their own costs.