1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants who were respondent sin the lower appellate court. Therewere four plaintiffs who were the appellants in the court of appeal be low and respondent first party here.

2. The plaintiffs belonged to the branch of one Dhari Sah alias Ramdhari Sah, whereas the defendants-appellants belonged to the branch of one Yugal Sah. The plaintiffs-respondents Ist Party had brought a suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the property in the suit. The genealogy is admitted. One Bhola Sah had three sons, namely. Yugul Sah, Gugul Sah and Dhari Sah alias Ramdhari Sah.

3. According to the case of the plaintiffs Bhola Sah died in the state of jointness leaving behind his three sons aforementioned in the year 1936. Bhola Sah aforementioned carried on his family business and other trade out of the income of which he acquired certain properties including the land under partition which were acquired in the name of different members of the joint family. All the branches of three sons of Bhola Sah were earlier joint in mess and business till some 18 years before the institution of the suit. When there was a partition of immoveable and grains, the land of the joint family were also for the sake of convenience of cultivation possessed by the parties separately without there being a partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs, therefore, demanded partition of their 1/3rd share in the property which having been refused this suit was instituted.

4. The defence of the appellants was that Bhola Sah was a poor man having no family property apart from a residential house in which he was living. He actually died in the year 1926. The disputed property, namely, the property acquired under a registered sale deed dated 17-2-1975 in the name of Yugul Sah, a certified copy of which is Exhibit-1 was said to have been acquired exclusively by Yugul Sah personally from out of his own business income. The joint family have got nothing to do with the properties covered by Ext. 1.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that on the admitted case of the parties although the acquisition was made by Yugul Sah during the lifetime of his father Bhola Sah the joint family had no income or funds at all from out of which this property could have been acquired. The trial court has accepted the case that Bhola Sah died in the year 1926. As to whether he died in the year 1926 or in the year 1936 does not make any difference for the purpose of the question involved in this appeal. Admittedly, Bhola Sah was living on the date when the properties were acquired under Ext. 1 on 17-2-1925. Admittedly again the sale deed was executed by one Bala Kuer and another (strangers to the family) in favour of Yugul Sah whose heirs are the appellants here. The trial court held "admittedly, Bhola Sah, ancestor of the parties did not possess even a dhur of land till his death except a house and the land over which it stood". This finding has not been disturbed by the lower appellate court. Yet while the suit had been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge who had tried the suit on the ground that it was not joint family property but was the self-acquisition of Yugul Sah, the learned Additional District Judge in appeal has decreed the suit for partition with regard to the properties covered under the sale deed (Ext. 1) on the only ground that the properties covered by Ext. 1 were sought to be dealt with in the year 1956 by other branches of the erstwhile joint family.

6. In my considered view, learned Additional District Judge has misdirected himself on a substantial question of law which vitiates his judgment. As I have already observed above, the undisturbed finding of the trial court is that Bhola Sah was possessed of not even a dhur of land till his death except a house in which he was residing. Now I must state here some well settled principles of law which cover cases of the instant nature. It is true that if a joint family po