Judgment The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.101 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Prathipadu, is the appellant herein. 2. The suit was one filed for partition of the schedule property into four shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and also for profits. 3. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant borrowed some money from him and as the 1st defendant failed to discharge the said loan, he filed S.C.No.237 of 1968 and obtained a decree and in execution of the decree, he purchased the property and obtained a symbolic delivery of the property in E.A.No.983 of 1973 on 24.12.1973. After the said sale, the second defendant came into possession of the property and hence the suit. 4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement disputing the validity of the Court sale and the decree. The suit as framed is not maintainable and all the family members of the 1st defendant were not added as parties to the proceedings and the suit for partial partition is also not maintainable. The 1st defendant sold his share in 1967 under possessory agreement to one K. Veera Raju of Peddapuram and the 1st defendant cannot have any other property in the family. There is collusion between the 1st defendant and plaintiff. The 2nd defendant claimed to have purchased the land from all the sharers of the 1st defendant’s family, who are the original owners, for discharge of their prior mortgage debt. The 3rd defendant was subsequently added as a party disputing the Court auction and contending that she also purchased part of the property. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record accepted the execution of sale and found that the plaintiff will be entitled to the partition of the property and as against that A.S.No.45 of 1988 was preferred to the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, and who allowed the appeal holding that the suit for partition of the particular item of the joint family is not maintainable and the plaintiff has to file a suit for general partition and since all the members of the family of the 1st defendant are not parties, the suit is bad. However, the Court also expressed infirmity in the evidence of the plaintiff with regard to the delivery of the property. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is filed. 6. However, the Court also expressed infirmity in the evidence of the plaintiff with regard to the delivery of the property. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is filed. 6. The following substantial questions of law have been framed: 1) Whether the 1st appellate Court is justified in reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court when it has accepted the correctness of findings and accepted the oral and documentary evidence relied on by it? 2) Whether the 1st appellate Court can dismiss the suit for partition basing on item No.3 as it was framed; since the said issue is not to the effect that whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and also without any specific pleading in the written statement of defendants 2 and 3? 3) Whether the findings and observations of the 1st appellate Court on issue No.3 are perverse, on facts and on law? 7. POINTS: It is to be noted that the Court auction in favour of the plaintiff is long prior to the alleged purchase in favour of defendants 2 and 3. The sale was held on 20.01.1972 and the sale was confirmed on 18.02.1972 and symbolic delivery was said to have been delivered on 24.12.1973, whereas the sale deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under Ex.B.1 is dated 24.04.1975, which is said to be in discharge of the earlier debts. The lower appellate Court was not inclined to believe the claim of the 2nd defendant that he was in possession of even prior to the purchase under Ex.B.1 sale deed in 1975 as can be seen from the para No.13 of the judgment. The lower appellate Court also found in para No.14 that the defendants have not proved the sale deed under Ex.B.1 or Ex.B.6 relating to the part of the property to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents as claimed by the 3rd defendant. There is a positive finding that none of the documents filed on behalf of the defendants can be said to have been proved. 8. There is a positive finding that none of the documents filed on behalf of the defendants can be said to have been proved. 8. Therefore, from the material evidence on record, it is quite clear that the plaintiff is a purchaser in a Court auction and his evidence is not destroyed in the cross-examination and the alleged collusion between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is not believed by the 1st appellate Court from the reasoning adopted in para No.13 and in fact, the collusion between the 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3 was presumed. Having held so, evidently, when Ex.A.3 delivery receipt clearly goes to show that the Amin has delivered the symbolic delivery, there is no reason for the Court to doubt the same. In fact, the 1st defendant, who is the affected party, never disputed about the Court sale or delivery proceedings. 9. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the delivery proceedings are not proved. A proof of a fact is required when the person interested denies the same. Evidently, by the date of the alleged delivery under Ex.A.3, defendants 2 and 3 are found to be having no interest and the 1st defendant, who is the affected party and against whom the decree was obtained, never objected to the delivery or the sale. Therefore, it has to be held that the plaintiff has acquired right in 1/4th of the share of the schedule property belonging to the 1st defendant. 10. The learned appellate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was not filed for a general partition of the entire properties of the family of the 1st defendant and the necessary family members are not added as parties and consequently, the suit has to fail and accordingly allowed the appeal. There is no dispute about the settled principle of law that an alienee from a coparcener has to file a suit for general partition when specific item of the property is sold. But, however, in this case, the specific item of the property in which the plaintiff seeking 1/4th share is said to have been alienated by all the joint family members in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the suit is one, essentially, between the Alienees of the property and not a suit for partition of the joint family properties against the coparceners. Therefore, the suit is one, essentially, between the Alienees of the property and not a suit for partition of the joint family properties against the coparceners. Therefore, in such circumstances, the general principle that a stranger purchaser has to file a suit for partition and that a suit for general partition is necessary has no application to the facts of the case. In fact, this aspect can be no longer in doubt in view of the full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court reported in Iburamsa Rowthan & others Vs. Thiruvenkatasami Naick (died) and others (Volume 20 MLJ (1910) 743), wherein it was held that: “When certain items of family properties are conveyed by one of two co-parceners of a Hindu family to a stranger for purposes not binding on the family, the alienee from the other co-parcener of his share in the said properties may, without instituting a general suit for partition of the entire family property, maintain an action for the partition of his share in the said items”. This judgment was followed in AlluriSuranna and others Vs. Chedalavadu Subbarayudu and others (Volume 65 MLJ (1933) 769), which reads as follows: “When all the members of a joint family have parted with their rights in a specific property of the family, questions between the alienees of the several members are not questions between coparceners”. 11. Even otherwise if any of the members of the joint family are necessary they can be added as parties at any stage of the proceedings even during the final decree proceedings before passing of the final decree. Reliance can be placed on the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in Ramader Appala Narasinga Rao Vs. Chunduru Sarada ( AIR 1976 AP 226 ), which reads as follows: “Court has inherent power to set aside a preliminary decree at the instance of a party who has been impleaded after passing the preliminary decree though he was not a party to such a decree. The court would exercise the power to do substantial justice between the parties having regard to the circumstances of the case”. 12. Therefore, for all the above reasons, the judgment passed by the 1st appellate Court is not legal and sustainable and the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for partition and profits as passed by the trial Court. 13. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed. 12. Therefore, for all the above reasons, the judgment passed by the 1st appellate Court is not legal and sustainable and the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for partition and profits as passed by the trial Court. 13. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment of the 1st appellate Court is set aside and the decree of the trial Court is restored. Each party shall bear their own costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.