of the suit property was sold to a 3rd party even in the year 2003 and therefore, said item 15 was not available for partition on the date of plaint. The said contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. The respondent/plaintiff in his pleadings had averred that the suit properties were Hindu joint family properties purchased out of joint family nucleus. Hence, any alienation by one of the member of the joint family without the consent of other member of the joint family will not bind the share of non consenting member. Therefore, merely because the first and second defendants sold item 15 of the suit property even prior to the institution of suit, the right of the plaintiff to claim partition in the property will not get vanished and hence when a portion of the suit property namely item 15 situated within the territorial limits of this Court, the objection made by the applicant as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court also falls to ground. Therefore, both the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, in support of his prayer for rejection of the plaint cannot be accepted and consequently, the application for rejection of the plaint is dismissed.
