A plaintiff's claim for partition of joint family properties is barred by res judicata if the properties were already partitioned in earlier partition suits and the plaintiff was a party to those suits. A plaintiff's claim for partition of joint family properties is barred by constructive res judicata if the plaintiff fails to prove that the properties are part of the joint family assets.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff is the appellant. The relationship between the parties is shown in the genealogical table in schedule A of the plaint. The properties in which the plaintiff claims partition are shown in schedules B, C and D of the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the plaintiffs claim for partition and dismissed the suit.

2. The genealogical table given by the plaintiff in his plaint was not challenged by the defendants. Hence the genealogical table is given below to show the undisputed relationship between the parties :

3. The plaintiffs case briefly stated is as follows : - Shaligram Missir alias Sagar Missir and his four brothers had joint ancestral properties and although there was no partition by metes and bounds they were in separate possession of different portions of the ancestral properties by way of convenience. They also lived separately from each other. The brothers after their mutual separation also acquired separate properties and were in separate exclusive possession of the properties so acquired by them.

4. On the death of Shaligram Missir on 12-5-1926 his share in the ancestral properties and his entire interest in his self acquired properties devolved upon his three sons Parshuram Missir, Nem Narayan Missir and Jadev Missir, and they continued to remain and from the joint family funds also acquired properties in the names of different cosharers and the same are mentioned in schedule B, C and D of the plaint. These suit properties are thus the joint properties of the descendants of Shaligram Missir. There has been no partition of these properties by metes and bounds and they have remained joint among the three branches of Shaligram Missir. Parshuram Missir died on 1956 as a result of which his entire interest in the joint ancestral as well as self-acquired properties as described in schedule B, C and D devolved upon his son Raghunandan, defendant 1 and two grandsons namely plaintiff and his brother Radha Govind defendant No. 2. Jadav Missir had died on 24-5-1927 and his interest in the suit properties devolved upon his two sons defendants 3 and 4 and two daughters defendants 14 and 15. The plaintiffs case further is that although parties were in possession of separate portions of land of the sake of convenience, the plaintiff continued to be joint with his father, brother uncle, cousins and cousin sisters and as defendant No. 1 father, and defendants 3, 4 and 5 were the elder male members in the family they used to deal with the joint family properties and the joint family funds and also take necessary steps in legal proceedings. The plaintiff however, found difficulty in continuing to remain joint with the other members of the joint family and hence he separated himself from defendants 1 and 2 on 1st April, 1974 and requested them to partition the joint family properties by metes and bounds and on account of their refusal he has to file the suit.

5. In his plaint, the plaintiff has referred to two earlier partition suits. He has stated that Sarju Missir father of defendants 10 to 13 (Sarju Missirs name appears to have been left out by mistake in the genealogical table) had filed title suit No. 2 of 1948 in respect of only some of the joint ancestral properties which had developed from the common ancestor Deonath Missir but those properties have not yet been partitioned by metes and bounds. He has referred to another title suit i.e. title suit No. 3 of 1948 filed by Basudeo Missir and Shrikant Missir (sons of Jadav Missir) and he has alleged that it was in respect of only some of the ancestral joint properties while deliberately leaving out other joint family properties, and even in this suit there has been no division by metes and bounds. Plaintiff has contended that in view of the fact that the aforesaid two suits did not cover all the joint family properties, he has now filed this suit in respect of the properties as detailed in schedules