The main legal point established is that when the entire joint hindu family property has been partitioned, there is no basis for further partition through a suit.

1. - This is plaintiffs' first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur, dismissing the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants owned and possessed joint hindu family property worth Rs. 21 lacs at the time of the institution of the suit, but according to the defendants, in their written statement, a partition had taken place. On the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following five Issues:-

"1. Whether the oral partition dated 30.4.61 relating to the moveable properties and partition effected through partition deed. Paper No 33-C/1-8 dated 23.11.61 in respect of the remaining properties of the joint family were not acted upon by the parties. If not, so whether the suit is maintainable ?

2. Whether the suit properties described in Schedule A of the plaint were acquired by Seth Shyamlal with the help of his ancestral nucleous ? If not so, to what effect ?

3. Whether the suit properties have correctly been valued and the court fee paid is sufficient ?

4. What is the effect of the previous litigation which was started by the plaintiff No. 5 Shri Shantilal in the year 1961 ?

5. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled ?"

2. Learned trial court, after recording evidence and hearing arguments of the parties, while deciding Issue No. 1 has found that the oral partition in respect of the moveable properties and cash took place on 30-4-1961 and in respect of immovable properties took place on 23-11-1963 in between Seth Shyamlal, his wife Srimati Champa Devi and his four sons S/Shri Shantilal, Nathilal, Kedarnath and Sribhagwan, and both these partitions have duly been acted upon by the parties. The trial court further held that when all the properties of the joint family have actually been partitioned amongst its members, there arises no question of their further partition by a suit of partition. As regards Issue No. 2, the trial court held that the suit properties were joint properties with the parties ; while Issue No. 3 had been decided on 13-7-1972. Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the previous suit was not a bar for the present suit.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has seriously challenged the findings of the trial court and has submitted that even if the partition is accepted, then it was most in equal and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for partition. He has submitted that the costs should not have awarded in the present case and even if the cost had to be awarded, it should have been only in respect of share of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance on P.N. Venkatasubramania Iyer and others v. P.N. Eawara Iyer and others (AIR 1966 Mad. 266). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the lower court.

4. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as record of the case. Learned trial court while discussing Issue No. 1 has gone through the entire oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties and has also reproduced the relevant portions from them, in his judgment. Since I am in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the trial court, I do not think it necessary to discuss the entire evidence in detail. On the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that oral partition with respect to moveable properties had taken place on 30-4-1961 and that of immovable properties on 23-11-1963 and they have also been acted upon by the parties and therefore, there is no question of any decree of partition in the present suit. It is true that the father of the plaintiffs had died on 8-5-1966 before the filing of the suit and their mother Champa Devi had been arrayed as a defendant, (defendant No. 7) in the original suit. The plaintiffs had claimed pa