B. K. Patel, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athamallik dismissing Title Suit No. 79 of.2000, a suit for partition. Appellant was the plaintiff and respondents were the defendants in the suit.

2. Late Kalandi was the common ancestor of the parties. He had two sons, namely Late Ratnakar and late Ghosa. Plaintiff, being• the son, as well as defendants 8 to 12 represent late Ghosa’s branch whereas defendants 1 to 7 represent branch of late Ratnakar. Suit lands have been recorded jointly in the names of late Ratnakar and late Ghosa in the Hal Record of Rights. It is also not disputed that late Ghosa had filed Title Suit No. 30 of 1994 against his brother late Ratnakar for partition of the suit lands, but due to non-substitution of the plaintiff upon his death the suit abated.

3. Plaintiff’s case is that the suit lands are joint property of the parties and have never been partitioned by metes and bounds though plaintiff and each of the defendants is in possession of separate portion of the suit lands for the sake of convenience. It is alleged that as the plaintiff’s request for partition was not headed