Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. It is also doubtful as to whether the plaintiffs could file the suit for partition which is partial in its character. The case of the plaintiffs is that in the whole of the suit property there were three shares. One belonged to rajesham, he had earlier partitioned, which property was not divided by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs have one-third share and the rest belongs to the defendant-appellant. After the plaintiffs purchased under the compromise decree the one-third share of Rajesham from his widow, they became entitled to two-thirds share in the suit property. They filed the suit only for partition and separate possession of one-third share. The question naturally is whether the plaintiffs can get one-third share of Rajesham separated and continue their one-third share joint with the one-third share of the defendant. If the plaintiffs had become entitled to two-thirds share, they should have asked for partition of their two-thirds share from the defendant. The learned Advocate for the respondents could not show me as to why this is not a case of partial partition. It is not material that they got the share of Rajesham transferred in their favour. What is more relevant is that they are entitled to two-thirds share in the suit property. They should have therefore asked for the separation of two thirds share, and not a suit for separation of one-third share only and allowing the other one-third share to remain joint with the one-third share of the defendant. Such a suit for partial partition, in my view , is not maintainable.