This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendants no.2 and 3. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

2. Facts giving rise to the appeal are as under:

Respondents 1and 2 the original plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition and separate possession. Plaintiffs contended that the property as described in Schedules A, Band C was ancestral joint family property and the plaintiffs had 1/5th share in the same property. It is their contention that the suit property is in possession of the defendants 2 and 3. Until their mother was alive she was looking after the suit property which is an agricultural land and a house. Plaintiffs contend that defendant no.1 is claiming exclusive title over the field survey no.252/1 on account of a Will said to have been executed in favour of defendant no.1. The plaintiffs claim partition and separate possession of the suit property.

3. Defendants 1 and' 4 filed their separate Written Statement and admitted that the suit property in Schedules A to C was the ancestral joint family property except field Sur. No.252/1. According to defendants this property was the separate property of the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants, and she had bequeathed that property in favour of defendant no.4. They therefore contend that plaintiffs or other defendants do not have share in field Sur. No.252/1

4. Defendants No.2 and 3 filed their Written Statement. They admitted that the suit property mentioned in Schedules A to C was the joint family property, however the defendants 2 and 3 contended that the plaintiffs had excluded the property at Nagpur and Pune and the other property mentioned in Schedule o attached with their Written Statement. They contended that this property which is described in Schedule D is also a joint family property and that should also be partitioned. That property includes a plot at Nagpur, a house at Nagpur, house at Pune and other moveable property and further one open plot which is in dispute with a third party at Wardha. Defendants 2 and 3 submit that the property mentioned in Schedule D that is the plot at Nagpur, house at Nagpur and Pune were purchased by the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 after the sale of agricultural land located at Baggi and Danapur. It is also contended by them that their mother had paid sum of Rs.6,000/- to the plaintiffs for purchasing the fiat at Pune. They submit therefore that this property having been purchased from out of income of the joint family should be treated as a joint family property and file a counter claim.

5. Learned Judge of the trial Court after recording the evidence found that the property as mentioned in Schedules A to C was a joint family property and same was liable to be partitioned and plaintiffs had 1/5th share in the same. He found that the Will said to be executed in favour of defendant no.4 was void. He further found that property as mentioned in Schedule D of the Written Statement of defendants 2 and 3 is not a joint family property.

6. An appeal was preferred by the defendants 2 and 3 before the District Judge. Additional District Judge who heard the appeal confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

7. Appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the suit was maintainable in the absence of taking the entire property in the hotch-potch ?

[ii] Whether the property standing in the name of different members of the family or coparceners could be said to be their separate or self-acquired property in view of the existence of nucleus and whether this aspect of the matter has been considered in its proper perspective by the Courts below?

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri. Jamal learned counsel for respondent no.2.

9. First question of law relates to failure of the plaintiffs to bring all joint family property in the common hotch-potch. In fact to my mind this question of law did not