JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal from a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mymensingh in a suit brought by the Plaintiff for partition of certain moveable properties. The Plaintiff is the brother of Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3; and Defendant No. 4 is their mother. The father of the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mahomed Mafizer Rahaman Chowdry, died on the 29th June 1904, leaving the parties to the suit surviving him, and also two daughters, Rahimunnessa Banu and Kalimunnessa Banu. He appears to have left considerable property both moveable and immoveable. The Plaintiff now sues for a partition of the moveable properties on the allegation that subsequent to the death of his father, Mafizer Rahaman Chowdry, a document, called the deed of partition, was effected between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the 1st October 1904, by which the daughters relinquished their claim to the moveable properties now in suit and to the brick-built rooms of the dwelling-house. The Plaintiff goes on to state that the moveable properties and the remaining immoveable properties are the ijmali properties of the Plaintiff and the Defendants and are in their joint ownership and possession. It is true that he states that the immoveable properties are separately enjoyed by the brothers but no partition of them has been made. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 objected to the frame of the suit. The objections which they made in the lower Court and which have been repeated here, are, firstly that the present suit being one for partition of a portion only of the joint family property, cannot be maintained; secondly that the daughters were necessary parties to this suit inasmuch as they repudiate the alleged relinquishment by them of their right to the properties now in question. 2. The learned Vakil for the Appellants raised other objections but we need not go beyond these preliminary questions. Certain cases have been cited to us which no doubt dealt with suits for partition of property of Hindus but so far as the question before us is concerned, there does not seem to be any distinction in principle between partition of joint property under Hindu or under Mahomedan law. Certain cases have been cited to us which no doubt dealt with suits for partition of property of Hindus but so far as the question before us is concerned, there does not seem to be any distinction in principle between partition of joint property under Hindu or under Mahomedan law. The real objection to the suit is one which seems common to both classes of cases, namely, that it is inexpedient to allow suits for partition of a portion of the properties because, it would lead to a multiplicity of suits and to endless litigation between the parties who are jointly entitled to the properties. It is clear upon the admissions of the Plaintiff that there are properties other than those in suit jointly owned by him and by the Defendants. It is also a patent fact that the sisters, Rahimunessa Banu and Kalimunessa Banu (who have not been made parties to this suit), in their evidence repudiate, as we have said, any relinquishment by them of the claim to a share of these moveable properties, while the so-called deed of partition has not even been placed on the record. Under these circumstances it appears to us right that the case should go back in order that the Plaintiff may amend his plaint and make his suit one to which there can be no objection either on the score of his suing only for a part of his cause of action or of non-jointer of parties necessary to the suit. 3. The learned Vakil for the Plaintiff-Respondent says that he cannot raise any serious objection to this course being taken. The learned Subordinate Judge has disposed of these preliminary objections somewhat cursorily. He does not appear to have fully considered the law on the point, nor has he considered at all the convenience of the parties. 4. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the case to his Court with directions that within two months from the date of the receipt of the record by the lower Court, the Plaintiff be allowed to amend his plaint by making his suit into one for partition of the whole property and also by adding his sisters as parties Defendants, so that there may be a final adjudication of the rights of all the parties interested. The Plaintiff must pay the costs of the first and second Defendants of the suit and of this appeal up to date. These costs must be paid by him before he is allowed to amend his plaint that is to say within two months from the date of the arrival of the record in the lower Court. 5. As for the third Defendant, he has, so far as we understand, sided with the Plaintiff. We therefore direct that he do pay his own costs in the Court below as well as in this Court. If the Plaintiff fails to amend his plaint within the time specified, then this appeal will be allowed and his suit will stand dismissed with costs in both the Courts. 6. We assess the hearing fee in this appeal at five gold mohurs. Let the record be sent down without delay.