1. Plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 insituted a suit for declaration partition and perpetual injunction mainly with the allegations that the private parties to the suit were legal heirs of Munnalal and Gyarasibai. After the death of Munnalal, defendant-appellant No.1 being the eldest, became manager of the Joint Hindu Family, which owns agricultural land in area 56 Bigha and two Biswa at Vidisha, which was recorded in the name of defendant-appellant No.1. Out of his land, an area of28 Bigha 1 Biswa was sold in the year 1963. Remaining land described in para 3 of the plaint, is the subject-matter of this appeal. It was alleged that a division of the capital of the business of Joint Hindu Family took place on 25.10.1973 between the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 and 2 and widow of Munnalal. On 12.5.1997, residential houses belonging to the Hindu Family were also divided. However, the suit land remained undivided because the parties used to share the crops of agricultural produce till the year 1987. In the year 1988, defendant-appellant No.1 refused to provide agriculture share to the plaintiffs. On enquiry, they came to know that the defendant-appellant No.1 got the suit property partitioned between him and his children and got it recorded separately in separate shares in revenue records. Hence, the suit with the following reliefs:"

(i) that, it may be declared that the plaintiffs have 1I4th share each in the suit land;

(ii) that, the suit land may be partitioned and separate possession may be delivered to the plaintiffs;

(iii) that, the defendants may be restrained by issuing permanent injunction from interfering into the land on allotment to the plaintiffs by partition;

(iv) that, mesne profit at the rate of 10,000/- p.a. may be awarded."

2. Defendants Nos. 1,2 and 4 to 7 submitted their written statement denying thereby the claim of the plaintiffs. It was denied that the suit land was Joint Hindu Family property. On the contrary, it was averred that it was self acquired of the defendant-appellant No.1. It was further stated that partition took place on 25.10.1973 and thereafter plaintiffs and defendants No.1, 2 and 3 occupied their respective portions and started independent business. Alleged partition on 12.5.1977 in respect of the house property was denied in specific. Since the suit land was purchased by defendant No.1 by his self acquired money it was rightly partitioned between him and his sons.

3. Earlier, learned trial Judge dismissed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.7.1998. On appeal, the same was set aside vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.8.1999 allowing further the suit of the plaintiffs declaring that the plaintiffs have 1/4th share each in the suit agricultural land and shall have right to obtain possession by partition through the Collector, Vidisha. Mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- has also been ordered. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, present appeal is preferred which has been heard on the following substantial question of law in addition to IA Nos. 5360/01,5361/01 and IA No. 17173/08;"Whether the findings of the first appellate Court are vitiated on the point of nucleus in absence of specific plea or partial partition of joint Hindu Family?"

4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the disputed agricultural land was purchased by the appellant defendant No.1 in his own name vide registered sale deed 21.9.1998 (Ex. D-l). It is not proved to have been purchased by the funds of HUE Moreover, a partition having once taken place in the year 1970, suit for further partition is not tenable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and decree.

5. Learned Court below appreciating the evidence found that the father Munnalal was engaged in business which was inherited by his children. Defendant-appellant No.1 being the eldest, started managing it. Land in question was purchased in t