ORDER:- The order under revision is patently wrong and without jurisdiction and has to be set aside.

2. Short facts are as follows:-

Petitioner and his wife brought a suit against the respondents (Sp. Civil Suit No. 8/74) before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division of Margao for partition of the property as described in para one of the plaint. According to the plaint the property was held in common by the parties to the suit and a private deed of partition had been drawn up before the ex-Notary Public of Margao on 13-4-64. Plaintiffs prayed that the property be partitioned by metes and bounds in terms of the contract between the parties vide partition deed dated 13-4-1964.

3. The defence of the respondents/ defendants was that the property was not a joint property belonging to the parties as alleged in the plaint. According to them the property belonged exclusively to the defendants 1 and 2 because though the sale deed stood in the name of their father, the real purchaser was the defendant No. 1 alone.

4. Issues on these pleadings were framed and they are at Exh. 9 of the record.

5. Respondents. No. 1-2/defendants subsequently filed a suit against the plaintiffs and two ot