MONOJ KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the defendant and it arises out of a suit for partition.

( 2 ) THE suit property comprises of plot Nos. 68, 83, 162 and 181 appertaining to khatian No. 89 of mouza Gahak and it formerly belonged to one Saharjan Sk. who died in the year 1367 B. S. leaving behind two sons Abdul Karim (the plaintiff No. 1) and Abdul Rahim and two daughters Momena Khatun (the plaintiff No. 21 and Mohuda Khatun (the plaintiff No. 3 ). According to the plaintiffs, though there was no partition of their ancestral properties. their brother Abdul Rahim transferred the suit plots to the six defendants by separate sale deeds falsely claiming that he was in exclusive possession thereof pursuant to an amicable partition amongst the co-sharers. By filing the suit the three plaintiffs therefore prayed for partition claiming 2/3rd share in the suit property.

( 3 ) IN contesting the suit the defendants averred that there was an amicable partition of the properties, left behind by Saharjan Sk. amongst his heirs in terms thereof the suit property fell exclusively to the share of Abdul Rahim. Thereafter Abdul Rahim sold some of the suit properties to them by separate sale deeds. Their further case was that Abdul Rahim sold only a portion of plot No. 68 and therefore being a co-sharer in respect of that plot he was a necessary party to the suit. It was also asserted on their behalf that besides the suit plots, Saharjan Sk. left behind other properties and as those properties were not brought into the hotchpot, the suit was not maintainable.

( 4 ) ON discussion of the evidence adduced during trial, the learned trial Court held that there was no previous partition amongst the heirs of Saharjan Sk. as contended by the defendants but dismissed the suit on the grounds that Abdul Rahim was a necessary party and that all the properties left behind by the father of the plaintiffs were not brought into the hotchpot. In allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against such dismissal the learned lower appellate Court encurred with the finding of the learned trial Court that there was no amicable partition amongst the heirs of Saharjan Sk. but reversed the other two findings.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that besides the suit plots, Saharjan Sk. left behind certain other properties. In the context of this admitted fact, it has to be ascertained whether the suit for partial partition at the instance of the present plaintiffs is maintainable or not. The general rule is that in a suit for partition all the joint properties should be brought in the hotchpot so that equable and equitable distribution may be made. The rule is based on the principle that multiplicity of suits should be avoided as far as practicable. It is of course true that some of the decisions of our High Court, including the one in the case of Rajendrar Kumar Bose v. Brojendra Kumar Bose, reported in 37 Cal LT 191, on which the learned Advocate for the respondents relied before us, and that in the case of Tarini Charan Chakerbutty v. Debendralal De, reported in (1935) 39 Cal WN 1044 on which the learned lower appellate Court relied have laid down that there is also a complementary rule that a suit for partition need not include properties, in which each of the parties does not claim an interest. Relying on that complementary rule, the learned single Judge, who decided the case of Tarini Charan Chakerbutty (supra) held that the suit filed by the purchaser of a share of a joint property claiming partition only in respect of the plot purchased by him was maintainable.

( 6 ) IN our considered view the exception to the general rule should not be made applicable to the facts of the instant case. Unlike the case of Tarini Charan Chakerbutty (supra), the plaintiffs before us have interest in all the properties left behind by their father and as such they cannot claim partition in respect of some of those properties only. In other words, if the present s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document