when there is no materials in the record till yet to show about the division/ partition of the suit land and when it is held that, the defendant no.2 being the purchaser of the suit land from the defendant No.1 only, he (defendant No.2) alone is not the exclusive owner of the suit land, because, the plaintiff is a co-owner of the suit land / property, then at this juncture, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below in decreeing the suit vide C.S. No.334/2013 of the plaintiff in part preliminary for partition of the suit property between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and for carving out the share of defendant No.2 as a purchaser of Defendant No.1 from the share of the defendant No.1 and the dismissal of the counter claim of the defendant No.2 refusing to declare that the defendant No.2 refusing to declare that the defendant no.2 alone is the absolute owner over the suit property cannot be held erroneous of illegal. But, whereas, the findings and observations made by the learned Court below in para No.7 of the impugned judgment and decree that no title can be passed to the defendant No.2 by virtue of the sale deed to a specific portion as there is no partition is held to be erroneous. For which, the decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellant in RFA No.10 of 2021 indicated above in para No.13 of the judgment are held as inapplicable to this appeal at hand on facts and law, as per the discussions and observations made above.
