Modi, J. - (1.)This is a regular Civil first appeal by the defendants Udaichand and others in a suit for partition.
(2.)The following agreed pedigree will serve to explain the relationship between the parties : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
The dispute between the parties relates to certain properties which are mentioned in para two of the plaint and which are situte in the town of Snjangarh. The plaintiffs' case was that a partition had taken place between the two sons of Mohanlal viz., Bherundan and Kaluram in Smt. 1971 as a result of which one Haveli and one Nohra fell to the share of Bherundan and another Haveli and Nohra fell to Kaluram's share. Thus, the house marked JUDGEMENT_33_LAWS(RAJ)10_1960.html in the site plan Ex. i. According to the plaintiffs, this Bakhal was kept as joint between the two branches of Mohanlal's sons. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the partition of this open land. The plaintiffs' case, put briefly, is that they were entitled to a one third share in this open land another one-sixth belonged to Sumermal defendant No. 6, and the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were entitled to the remaining half share therein. The plaintiffs claimed a partition of their share in this land by metes and bounds. They also claimed a partition of the house "...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]..." between themselves and defendant No.6 Sumermal but with this aspect of the case we are not concerned in the present appeal.

(3.)Defendant Sumermal contested the suit and his plea so far as the dispute in the present appeal is concerned was that the Bakhal had been kept joint between the parties, and that by its very nature it was not capable of partition, and that it was only by being kept jointly that the entire land covered by the Bakhal could be best used by the parties. The defendants appellants Udaichand and his sons raised a similar plea in their written statement.
;