ORDER

D.D. Seth, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for partition of the two houses in dispute. The Plaintiffs claimed 2/7th share in the two houses. The Plaintiffs' case was that the houses in dispute were ancestral belonging to the common ancestor of the parties, namely, Mawasi Singh. According to the Plaintiffs, some quarrels developed between the parties and hence the suit was filed by the Plaintiffs claiming 2/7th share in the houses in dispute on the basis of the pedigree given in the plaint.

2. Defendants Nos. 3 to 9 did not admit the pedigree given in the plaint, but Dal Chand, one of the contesting Defendants, admitted the correctness of the pedigree. It was, however, pleaded by the Defendants that the parties have always been members of the joint family and there had never been any partition in the family. They also urged that the joint family was possessed of sufficient property comprising of agricultural land, houses etc. and further that certain properties belonging to the joint family had not been included in the suit and hence the suit was bad for partition and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

3. Before the trial court, two questions were pressed on behalf of the parties. The first question was regarding the extent of the Plaintiffs' share in the houses in dispute and the other question was whether the suit was bad for partial partition.

4. The trial court held that the Plaintiffs had 2/7th share in the houses in dispute and on the second question, the trial court held that the family of the parties continued to remain joint and undivided and that it was possessed of some other properties and since those properties had not been included in the suit by the Plaintiff while seeking partition, the suit was defective on account of partial partition. On these findings, the trial court dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit.

5. In appeal, the only point which was urged before the appellate court, was that the trial court was wrong in taking the view that the suit was defective on account of partial partition and was not maintainable. The appellate court held that the parties had been living as members of the joint family and the contention of the Plaintiffs, to the contrary, was not correct. The appellate court further held that since Ahata No. 4 and houses Nos. 40 and 41 were joint family properties and since they had not been included in the suit, the suit was obviously bad for partial partition. On these findings, the appellate court dismissed the Plaintiffs' appeal.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the courts below, the Plaintiffs have come up in second appeal to this Court. I have heard Sri Shambhu Prasad, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellants, an the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

7. On 17th July, 1969, Sri Sambhu Prasad filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC praying that certified copies of the judgments of the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which were filed along with the application, be admitted and read in evidence in the appeal. A copy of the application was served by Mr. Shambhu Prasad on Sri K.C. Agrawal, learned Counsel representing the Defendant-Respondents and on 17th July, 1969, I allowed three weeks' time to Sri K.C. Agarwal to file a counter-affidavit. The application Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC came up for hearing before me on 13th April, 1970 and by my order of that date, after hearing Sri Shambhu Prasad and Sri K.C. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the parties, I allowed the application filed by Sri Shambhu Prasad Under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC and ordered the judgments of the Consolidation Courts to be admitted and read in evidence. At the request of Sri K.C. Agrawal I allowed him three weeks' time to file documentary evidence on behalf of his clients in rebuttal, but no documents in rebuttal were filed by Sri K.C. Agrawal.

8. Only one point was urged before me by Sri Shambhu Prasa