Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered in defendant's No. 1 to 3 second appeal is as under:-

"Whether both the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit for partial partition filed by plaintiff is maintainable ignoring the fact that the suit does not embrace entire joint family property especially ignoring the property held by them in the State of Uttar Pradesh?"

[For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court].

Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the present second appeal are that:--

1.1 The following genealogical tree will establish the relationship between the parties:--

1.2 The suit property originally belonged to four brothers, namely, Raghunandan Prasad, Prayag, Shivram and Ramasray. Plaintiff-Jagdish is son of Shivram, whereas, defendants No. 1 and 2 are sons of Raghunandan Prasad and defendant No. 3 is grandson on Raghunandan Prasad, defendant No. 4 is son of Prayag and defendant No. 5 is son of Ramasray.

1.3 The joint family of the four brothers purchased scheduled suit