1. The only ground urged upon us in this second appeal is that even on the finding of the District Judge that Iyavu Chetty and Nachi Chetty were undivided, and that the property sold to plaintiff was their joint family property, still the District Judge ought not to have dismissed the suit in toto, but should have given plaintiff a decree for one-half of the property, as being the share of Iyavu Chetty therein. We cannot admit this contention. The case of Venkatarama v. Meera Labai I.L.R. 13 Mad. 275 is a clear authority for holding that the purchaser of an undivided share of one member of a Hindu family in specific family property cannot sue for partition of that portion alone, and obtain delivery thereof by metes and bounds. Still less can he do so in a case like the present where he sues on an allegation that the property is the self-acquisition of the vendor, and it is proved that it is joint family property. The course, which the plaintiff should take is pointed out in the case to which we have referred. He can recover nothing in this suit.
2. The decree of the Distrct Judge was, therefore, right. We confirm it and dismiss this second appeal with costs.