JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

This is a defendant's second appeal, arising out of a preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition.

2. Original Suit No. 22 of 1976 was instituted by Shaukat Ali, arraying Nasiban Bibi as defendant No. 1 and Rasheed @ Kallu, Shaukat Ali's son as the second defendant. Jogendra Nath @ Lahiri and Lallu were arrayed as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to the suit and Jamir Ahmad @ Jhamman Driver as the fifth defendant.

3. Shaukat Ali sought partition of the four houses, shown in Schedule A to the plaint. The relief of partition is confined to Shaukat Ali, defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The other three defendants have been impleaded for reasons that shall be shortly indicated. The four houses set out in Schedule A to the plaint shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the suit property'.

4. The plaintiff pleaded a pedigree to indicate the relationship between himself and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The said pedigree, set out in Paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, is detailed below:

5. The plaintiff asserted a case that the suit property, comprising four houses together with a Courtyard, is located at Town Area Robertsganj, District Mirzapur (now District Sonbhadra). The late Khoob Ali was the owner in possession of the suit property until his demise. After his death, his widow Smt. Niranjani Bibi was recorded in the Municipal Records as the owner. After Niranjani's demise, the names of Smt. Shakuran, the other widow of Khoob Ali, besides that of his daughters, Nasiban and Bashiran were recorded. It is asserted that Shakuran, Smt. Nasiban and Smt. Bashiran - all three were recorded as owners in possession of the suit property after Smt. Niranjani. Smt. Bashiran passed away leaving behind her, her husband Shaukat Ali, the plaintiff and son Rasheed, defendant No. 2, as heirs and LRs, entitled to inherit.

6. It is the plaintiff's case that by succession, he and defendant No. 2, the plaintiff's son, together have a half share in the suit property, whereas defendant No. 1, Smt. Nasiban has the other half. Specifying the shares further, it is the plaintiff's case that a one-fourth share is held by him, one half by defendant No. 1 and the remainder one-fourth by defendant No. 2, and all parties are in possession of the suit property, in accordance with their shares. It is the plaintiff's case that defendant No. 1, Nasiban, out of the houses, comprising the suit property, has sold off two, all by herself, vide registered sale-deeds dated 25.1.1969 and 29.11.1971, in favour of Jogendra Nath @ Lahiri and Lallu, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to the suit, in that order.

7. It is also the plaintiff's case that the vendees have been put in possession of the two houses, sold to them through the sale-deeds aforesaid by defendant No. 1, and these two houses are detailed in Schedule B to the plaint. It is asserted by the plaintiff that notwithstanding the execution of the two sale-deeds under reference by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4, the two houses sold by defendant No. 1 exclusively, are also owned by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 together, to the extent of a half share, or a one-fourth share for each of them. The plaintiff has asserted that he repeatedly expressed his wish with defendant No. 1 that he wanted her to partition the suit property, but she remained elusive. This gave rise to the cause of action necessitating the suit for partition.

8. It is the plaintiff's further case that in a part of the houses comprised in Schedule B, defendant No. 5, Jamir Ahmad stays as a tenant of the plaintiff's. Accordingly, Jamir Ahmad has been impleaded as defendant No. 5 (proforma), in order to avoid any legal objection as to non-joinder, though no relief has been claime