1. The District Judge ought to have followed the ruling in Venkatachella Pillay v. Chinnaiya Mudaliar 5 M.H.C.R. 166 which is clearly in point.
2. At first sight it may seem strange that a purchaser may not bring a suit for partition in circumstances in which a member of the family other than the vendor may bring such a suit. There are reasons, however, why the one suit for partial partition should be allowed and the other not.
3. To allow the purchaser from one member of a family to bring a suit for the partition of the particular property purchased might facilitate members of an undivided family in dealing with the property in fraud of the rights of the family. It is not unreasonable that the purchaser should have no greater powers against the family than his vendor. On the other hand, it is to the advantage of the family to be able to ascertain by partition the particular property which the purchaser may retain and to be freed from all relations with a stranger to the family. Nor is the ability to sue for a partition of the particular property altogether disadvantageous to the purchaser, for if all the family property were brought into the suit it might turn out that the purchaser took nothing. The decision in Venkatachella Pillay v. Chinnaiya Mudaliar 5 M.H.C.R. 166 is not, in our opinion, shaken by the observations, in the case in Venkaya v. Lakshmayya I.L.R. 16 Mad. 98.
4. We must reverse the decree and remand the case for disposal according to law.
5. Costs to be provided for in the revised decree.