plaintiff to allege that there are certain properties or certain sums of money that is available for partition without describing it specifically in the plaint itself. As far as plaint A and B schedule properties are concerned, they are specifically described by the plaintiff to be immovable properties owned by her deceased father. However, when it comes to the C schedule, it is obvious that it is not a tangible property, it is not even an ascertained sum, since the appellants merely alleges that the defendants have, to her rough estimate, earned an amount of 74,25,000/-₹ from the industry and business run by them in plaint A and B schedule immovable properties for the last 8 years subsequent to their father's death. It is pertinent and relevant that nowhere in the plaint does the appellant aver that this is an ascertained available sum of money and on the contrary, it is inevitable, even by her own statements in the plaint, that this is an unascertained sum of money which is still unquantified. It, at best, represents only an estimate of the profits that the defendants may have received from running the business and the court below, in our view, justifiably and rightly held that such an estimate is not an estate that can be subjected to partition. The law on this point is
