( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a partition suit. This Court, while admitting the appeal has stated that the substantial question of law, which is involved in this appeal is: whether the First Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has no right to claim share in respect of suit schedule lands?

( 2 ) THEREFORE, untrammelled by the controversy which hinged in the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I confine my consideration only to this question.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff (appellant herein) filed the suit for partition and separate possession, claiming 204/57th share in the suit properties comprising of agricultural lands, house and open site. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 30-11-1957, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 27/48th share in the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant 7 filed an appeal before the First appellate Court. The First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 5-12-1963, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of agricultural lands, and decreed the suit in respect of the house and open site. Thus, it modified the judgme