The then learned Judge admitted this second appeal in view of substantial questions of law raised in ground Nos.9(a) and (b) of the memorandum. Those substantial questions of law are as follows:

(a) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant has a right to claim partition of B schedule items in view of the facts that a division could be inferred between the male members-defendants 1 and 2 by reasons of the facts (a) that they were living in separate door numbers, (b) that they were enrolled as votors in two different door numbers and (c) that they have separate ration cards and such admitted facts are inconsistent with their non-division of B schedule properties.

(b) Whether in any view of the matter, the plaintiff is entitled to claim partition of items 2 and 3 of B schedule which cannot be considered as a dwelling house wholly occupied by members of the family within the meaning of that term under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act as item 2 is a cattle shed and item No.3 is a vacant site purchased by plaintiff father and not build upon.

The appellant’s counsel filed a memo taking an additional ground in the second appeal as follows:

“W