Short Note : 1. The allegations in the plaint are to the effect that Ramle used to fight with his father. Therefore, Gumani turned him out. But, he gave him the lands bearing Survey Nos. 238, 939, 941, 1028, 1192, 1670 and 1780; after death of Ramle, defendants' names are mutated on these numbers. The lands having these survey numbers are not under dispute. The disputed survey numbers are 132, 1037, 1039, 1121, 1433 and 1779. 2. The main submission before me was that when the trial Court has found that there was no partition, and then it should have also held that the plaintiffs have a share in the property which has gone to Ramle and his heirs. Held : At the first sight, it is a very attractive argument, but this argument is not available to the plaintiffs, because they are bound by the admissions they have made in the plaint. The case put forward by the plaintiffs is that the entries regarding the disputed land namely survey Nos. 132, 1037, 1039, 1121, 1433 and 1779 show that the defendants have 1/3rd share along with the plaintiffs and, therefore, it should be declared that the defendants are not entitled to any share because of the partition. They have not made the subject-matter of the suit lands bearing survey Nos. 938, 939, 941, 1028, 1192, 1617 and 1718. The plaint allegations go to show that this property was given to Ramle by Gumani in other words, Ramle was the exclusive owner of this property and as such, the plaintiffs never included this property in the plaint for declaration that this property was a joint family property. When no allegation to this effect has been made and no declaration is sought as I have mentioned above, then the only declaration which can be given is to the effect as asked for by the plaintiffs on the basis of what is pleaded in the plaint. The main plank of the plaintiffs was that there was partition and because of partition the plaintiffs on one hand and the defendants on the other hand have become exclusive owners of the lands as mentioned above. The main plank of the plaintiffs was that there was partition and because of partition the plaintiffs on one hand and the defendants on the other hand have become exclusive owners of the lands as mentioned above. Now the plaintiffs cannot turn round and say that the allegations in the plaint regarding partition should be ignored and it should be declared that all the lands are joint family property and, therefore, they are entitled for their share in the land which stands in the name of Ramie and his heirs. Appeal dismissed.