(10) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in a proper perspective. It is admitted by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 that several properties of the family were dealt with by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and that those properties which were alienated by them, have not been shown as properties in the present suit. By this, the learned counsel for the appellants suggested that the suit is bad for partial partition as many of the properties belonging to the family were not included in the suit. This submission is devoid of any merits. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are members of the joint family and everyone is entitled to their respective share in the property as found by the Courts below. Merely because all the parties have joined together and sold some of the properties in favour of strangers and that, those properties alienated by the family have not been shown in the suit for partition, there cannot be a defence that the suit is bad for partial partition.
