JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

01. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against reversing judgment. The suit was for partition along with a prayer under Sec.4 of the Partition Act.

02. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 7. The residential house of the parties stands over the same. The suit properties were not partitioned amongst the co-sharers by metes and bounds. The parties possessed the suit land according to their convenience. Defendant nos.5 and 7 had transferred the suit schedule land to the defendant no.8 by means of a registered sale deed dated 4.11.1981 without his consent. Defendant no.8 was a stranger to the family. With this factual scenario, the suit was instituted seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

03. The contesting defendant no.8 filed written statement stating therein that there was a partition between the plaintiff and his co-sharers much prior to his purchase. In the partition, plot no.1042 fell to the share of defendant nos.5 to 7. The plaintiff and other co-sharers have no right, title and interest over the suit plot. The suit land is not liable to be partitioned. The plaintiff is not entitled t