1. Special leave is granted


2. Mr. Tewatia, counsel for the respondents submits that respondents 2, 7, 8 and 9 have common interest as against respondents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Respondents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are represented by Shri Tewatia along with Ms Naresh Bakshi. Counsel for the appellants deletes rest of the respondents in the light of the following order


3. Having heard counsel on both sides and having perused the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Judge as affirmed summarily by the High Court must be set aside. Hamela died leaving behind three sons, Jati, Faqiria and Duni. Jati seems to have alienated certain property inherited from his father to respondent 1 and Smt. Satya, wife of Waryam Singh. Jati had no issue. Faqiria had seven sons out of whom, some have filed a suit for setting aside alienation and possession of the property alienated by Jati. The trial court upheld their claim and held that the alienation was void since Jati was a member of the joint family. The trial court accordingly set aside the alienation but learned District Judge upon appeal reversed that judgment and decree. The High Court summarily dismissed the second appeal. The learned District Judge has observed that Jati was the last male holder and he had no issue and therefore, he had absolute right to dispose of the property inherited from his father


4. But it will be seen that Jati was not the only male member in the family and he had two brothers during the relevant period. Therefore, the reasoning of learned District Judge seems to be not justified and based on wrong facts


5. But it was urged by the counsel for the respondents that Jati disposed of his own share, that is one-third of the properties of Hamela and he has a right to alienate his share. Our attention was also invited to the pleadings in this context but these facts have not been investigated properly by any of the courts below and we do not want to express nay opinion. It is proper that the matter is considered by learned District Judge


6. In the result, we allow this appeal, reverse the judgment of the District Judge as affirmed by the High Court with a direction to restore the appeal on file and dispose

of the same afresh and in accordance with law and in the light of observations made. The parties to appear before the District Judge on January 9, 1990 to receive further order 7. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.