1. In this case the question is whether the present suit is sustainable for one item of what is admittedly joint family property, in view of the fact that the plaintiff has already brought a suit and obtained a decree for other items.

2. We cannot follow the learned Judge in deciding in the plaintiffs favour, on the sole ground that the property now claimed as in the possession of the 7th defendant is alleged by him to be his by purchase, and prescription, whereas in the previous suit it seems to have been referred to in the plaint as in the possession of the 7th defendant as a tenant. In either case the joint family character of the property was in question; and it was on account of that character reference to it was made before and the claim to it is made now. We cannot see how the ground on which the 7th defendant may be withholding it from the co-parcenery is material to the plaintiffs duty to have included it in the previous suit.

3. To turn to the grounds of decision adopted by the learned District Munsif, it cannot be disputed that a suit for partition of joint family property is a comprehensive ascertainment of the assets, including immoveable property, belonging to t