Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit are the revision petitioners before me. The first respondent plaintiff filed the suit for partition in respect of the schedule properties in the plaint. The first defendant in the suit who is now the second respondent before me contended before the trial Court that a registered partition had already taken place in the family in the year 1958 and therefore, a second partition does not lie. The first defendant further contended that many of the suit items are his self-acquired properties which are not liable for partition. Defendants 2 to 4 who are the present revision petitioners filed a written statement through their counsel and admitted in their written -statement that a registered partition had taken place in e family on 23rd November, 1973, and specifically stated that nothing remained to be divided after the said partition. The petitioners herein further contended that there is no question of accounting between the parties and that the first defendant is doing business separately and that he has nothing to do with the family. It is common ground that the suit was filed in the year 1982 and the suit was listed for trial and the case take