A purchaser of a portion of the rights of a member of an undivided family is entitled to claim a partition of the property in which the purchaser is interested, subject to any equities that may be set up by the other members of the family against the purchaser's interest.

1. The plaintiff in the suit, out of which this Second Appeal arose, purchased the right of the 3rd defendant, a member of an undivided family consisting of defendants Nos. 1 to 8, in certain lands in court-auction in execution of a decree obtained by him against the 3rd defendent. This suit was instituted in the District Munsif s Court of Namakal, Salem District and was to recover the 3rd defendants one-fourth share in those lands. The contesting defendants pleaded that there were other properties belonging to the family in the District of Coimbatore and in the Native State of Cochin and that the suit for the division of part only of the properties belonging to the family was not maintainable. They pleaded also that there were debts belonging to the family and that no partition could be allowed without making provision for the discharge of those debts. There were also other pleas, viz, that the plaintiffs claim was barred by the rule of res judicata and that the 3rd defendant had relinquished his right in the family property before the plaintiffs purchase. We disallowed these pleas at the hearing and we do not consider it necessary to deal with them further.

2. After the issues in suit had been framed, the 1st defendant asked that certain further issues should be raised, viz., (1) whether this suit is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court? (2) whether there are other properties, debts and incomes connected with the family as alleged by the 1st defendant? and (3) whether all those should be included in this suit and whether they should be got by all? The District Munsif disallowed this application on the ground that they did not arise out of anything contained in the original written statement. Complaint was made in the grounds of the appeal preferred by the defendants in the District Court against the Munsifs judgment that the Munsif "ought not to have disallowed the application for further issues necessary for the proper determination of all the contentions of the parties in the case." But the vakils who appeared for the appellants intimated at the hearing "that they did not press the grounds of appeal regarding the adequacy of issues or of the necessity for framing additional issues." The defendants insisted both in the Munsifs Court and in appeal that the suit should be dismissed on the ground that it did not ask for a partition of all the properties belonging to the family, for awarding to the plaintiff the 3rd defendants share in the lands purchased by the plaintiff. Both the lower courts disallowed this application on the ground that the rule that a suit for partial partition will not lie, does not apply where the properties not included do not lie within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is instituted and that such was the fact in this case as the other properties were within the jurisdiction of the courts in Coimbatore and Native Cochin. The learned District Judge relied in support of his view chiefly on Subba Raw v. Rama Row (1867) 3 M.H.C.R. 376. It is argued that that ruling is not applicable to suits instituted after the Civil Procedure Code, Act VIII of 1859, was repealed, according to which, a suit for recovery or partition of immoveable properties situated within the jurisdiction of more courts than one could be instituted in any one of the courts within whose jurisdiction part of the property was situate only with the permission of the court, while under the Procedure Code of 1877 (Act No. X of 1877) and the subsequent Codes such a suit could be instituted without any permission of court in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate. The argument is that it was because the plaintiff could not be bound to ask for permission to include in his suit properties, situated within the jurisdiction of another court, that it was held that he was not bound to include in a suit for partition properties which were not within the jurisdiction of the co