Devadoss, J.

1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the suit is not maintainable as it does not embrace all the properties belonging to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The plaintiff admits in his evidence that there are several lands belonging to him and the defendants which are in the possession of tenants, that he himself had leased the lands before the date of suit and that the income from the lands was payable to himself as well as to defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The District Munsif held that the suit was maintainable and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal of the defendants on the ground that the suit was maintainable. We are clearly of opinion that this is not a case in which there was any inconvenience or difficulty in the way of including the other lands belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants among the properties to be divided in the suit. If some property belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants was in the hands of a third party claiming adversely to them, or if some property was alienated by one of the co-sharers and if there was some difficulty in including such alienee in the suit, their it may be that the Court would