JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— The ground upon which the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit cannot in our judgment be supported. It appears that two shops belonged to certain members of a joint Hindu family. Some of the members sold their five-sixth share to the plaintiff on the 2nd of June,. 1900. It was found by the Court of first instance, and that finding was not questioned in the lower appellate Court, that this sale took place with the knowledge and consent of the other members. The plaintiff brought the present suit for partition of a five-sixth share in one of the two shops purchased by him. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not included in his claim the other shop in which he had purchased a share. This dismissal has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court, We think that in so holding the Courts below were in error. The case was not that of a member of a joint Hindu family seeking partition of a portion of the joint family property. The plaintiff is admittedly not a member of the joint family. Therefore the property sought to he partitioned is property held by certain persons who can only be deemed to be joint owners of it. There is nothing to preclude one of the joint owners of several items of property from seeking a partition of one of such items of property. 2. It may be that the joint owners may not deem it desirable to partition one portion of the property, but one of the owners may be desirous of partitioning another portion. There is no reason why such a partition shall not be allowed. The case of Jogendra Nath Mukeiji v. Jagabundhn Mukerj : [1886] I.L.R., 14 Cal., 122, which has been referred to by the Court of first instance, has no bearing on the present question. The case in point is that cited by the learned vakil for the respondents, namely, the case of Srimrti Padmnmani Das v. Srimati Jagadamba Dasi : [1871] 6 B.L.R., 134. In that case it was held that a person asking for partition is not compelled to include in this suit the whole of the property, but may confine his suit to a portion of the property which he is desirous of having partitioned. In that case it was held that a person asking for partition is not compelled to include in this suit the whole of the property, but may confine his suit to a portion of the property which he is desirous of having partitioned. With this view we are in full accord. We hold that the suit has been wrongly dismissed on the ground on which the Courts below have thrown it out. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below, and remand the case to the Court of first instance under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure with directions to re-admit it under its original number in the register and dispose of it according to law. The appellant will have his costs of this appeal, including fees on the higher scale. Other costs will follow the event.