The importance of thorough discussion of facts, reasoning, and independent findings on the issues by the trial court in granting a decree.

The appellants are the plaintiffs. They filed a suit for partition; for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendants 1, 3 and 4 in favour of the 5th defendant and for permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-

The plaintiffs are the daughters and the defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the defendants 1 and 2. Both the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 were enjoying undivided joint family properties. The suit property is one of the joint family property and therefore, the plaintiffs and defendants 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to equal shares. However, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 have sold the suit property to 5th defendant on 08.09.2000. The purchaser of the suit property namely, 5th defendant laid plots in the suit property and sold it to other defendants by virtue of sale deeds which are void abinitio. Therefore, the present suit is filed claiming partition of 2/5th shares and also to set aside the sale deed in respect of their shares as void abinitio.

3. The defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 18 remained exparte. The 5th defendant contested the suit by filing written statement as follows:-

The first defendant is having number of joint family properties and is still in possession of the same. Rest of the joint family properties have not been partitioned among the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4. All those properties should have been included in the present suit for partition. If all those properties are included, the plaintiffs can be allotted shares in some other property and the defendants 1, 3 and 4 can be allotted the suit property and by way of equity, it can be once again allotted to the 5th defendant. The 1st defendant also sold some of the joint family properties by way of sale deeds from 2002 to 2008 and those properties have not been included in the suit. Only to extract some amount from the 5th defendant, the present suit is filed with the collusion of defendants 1 to 4. The defendants 6 to 8 have purchased the plots and constructed their house.

4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and marked Exs.A1 to A21 in support of their claim. On the side of the defendants, the third party was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

5. The trial Court, decreed the suit as prayed for. The 5th defendant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. On considering the respective case of the parties, the appellate Court allowed the appeal, thereby, dismissed the suit.

6. Thus, the plaintiffs have filed the present Second Appeal, challenging the reversing finding of the Appellate Court. This Court, while admitting the Second Appeal raised the following substantial questions of law.

i. Is the lower appellate Court justified in non-suiting the appellants on the sole plea of partial partition overlooking that on the dte of suit, there was no joint family and the appellants as co-owners are entitled to maintain the suit for partition of their share?

ii. Is the plea of partial partition is entitled to be raised by an alienee from a coparcener of joint family?

7. Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted as follows:-

The 5th defendant admitted that the suit property is the joint family property. The only objection is that the other joint family properties were not included in the suit and therefore, the suit is bad for partial partition. Such objection is not maintainable since a suit for partition is also maintainable as held in 1998(2) LW 414 (Balakrishna Udayar and 3 others v. Chellammal and 9 others) and 2009(9) SCC 52 (R. Mahalakshmi v. A.V. Anantharaman). The plaintiffs are seeking partition of the present suit property only as a co-sharer and coparcener and therefore, the partial partition principle would not apply. The 5th defendant being an alienee cannot resist the suit on the ground of partial partition. Such objection can be raised at the best only by a coparcener and not by the alienee. On the date