JUDGMENT :- This second appeal by some of the defendants is directed against a concurring judgment arising out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs share, and partition and separate possession thereof.

To the suit, were impleaded some of the heirs of the original owner as defendants. One of the objections to tire maintainability of the suit was that the rest of the heirs of the original owner had not been impleaded in the suit. Both the courts below were agreed that this objection could not be upheld. The aggrieved defendants have appealed to this court.

Unlike the case of coparcenary under the Hindu law, the Muhammadan heirs inherit their shares in definite fractions. When there are several such heirs and each of them owns a definite fraction, they are all joint co-owners or tenants-in-common. Where a Hindu sues for partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family properties, he cannot ask for partial partition and separate possession of his share alone. That is peculiar to the nature and incidents of coparcenary law which cannot, with justification, be extended to the case of Mohammadan heir suing for partition of his share alone.

This principle app