SANJAY KAROL,C.J. - (1.)Challenge, limited in nature, laid by the plaintiff-appellants is with regard to the findings returned by the trial Judge, holding him not to have any jurisdiction to partition the properties outside the territorial limits of Agartala, notwithstanding the fact that the suit, inter alia, pertained to the partitioning of immovable properties situated both within and outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Tripura.
(2.)The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition of joint properties, both immovable as specified in Schedule-A and movable properties as specified in Schedule-B of the plaint. It is not in dispute that in the said Schedule, two of such properties are situate in Kolkata, description whereof is unambiguously clear, for in the written statement, in response to para-13 and 14 of the plaint, there is no categorical denial of such fact. In fact, pleaded "that the Baguihati properties are in the State of West Bengal outside the jurisdiction of this Learned Court."
(3.)Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Judge framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree for partition of joint property as prayed?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get one fourth share each?

4. To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?"

;