JUDGMENT Appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 494 of 1987 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram. The respondent filed the suit, for the relief of partition of plaint A and B schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one share to him. He has also prayed for a direction for ascertainment of the mesne profits. 2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as under: The father of the respondent, by name Bone Yerru Naidu, the husband of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, by name Boni Sat yam, and two others, by name Boni Tata and Boni Joginaidu, are brothers. The family held lands in Korukondapalem, Pinavemali and Attada Villages of Vizianagaram District. Yerru Naidu went as an illitom son-in-law to his father-in-laws house at Dharmavaram. 3. The respondent pleaded that there was a partition of the joint family properties among four brothers and the shares of his father Yerru Naidu and that of Boni Sat yam were kept in joint. It was alleged that in view of the fact that Yerru Naidu was residing at Dharmavaram, the joint properties of himself and Sat yam were entrusted to the letter for management. He pleaded that during his life time, Sat yam used to give half share of the produce, to Yerrunaidu, by cultivating the entire land, and after death of Sat yam, the first appellant managed the properties and used to pay the said amounts. Complaining that the first appellant has stopped payment of the amounts, and did not agree for partition, he filed the suit for the relief, referred to above. 4. On behalf of the appellants, a written statement was filed. They pleaded that the family partition took place sever~1 decades before the suit was filed, and at no point of time, the share of Yerru Naidu was entrusted for administration or management to Sat yam or the appellants. A further plea was raised to the effect that the first appellant executed a registered Will, in respect of the suit schedule property, in favour of appellants 2 and 3 and that the respondent attested the same and thereby, he is estopped from claiming the share in the said property. They also pleaded that the suit is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties and that it is not maintainable, even otherwise. 5. They also pleaded that the suit is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties and that it is not maintainable, even otherwise. 5. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree, as prayed for, through its judgment, dated 29-12-1992. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A. S. No.12 of 1993 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Vizinagaram. The appeal was dismissed on 07-04-1995. Hence, this Second Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit was not maintainable, for more reasons than one. He contends that the respondent specifically pleaded that there was a partition among the four brothers, referred to above, but failed to prove that the partition was partial in nature or that the shares of his father and Boni Satyam were re-united. He further submits that the respondent was not clear, as to the nature of the rights of the parties; and the Courts below committed serious errors in law, in passing the preliminary decree and sustaining it. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client had specifically pleaded that a partition took place several decades ago, by keeping the shares of two brothers i.e. Yerru Naidu and Satyam, together, and therefore, the suit filed, in the present form, is proper. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants ere not clear, in their stand; be it, as regards the extent of shares in the partition or the nature of possession over the suit schedule properties. He further contends that a comparison of the holdings of the appellants, on the one hand, and that of the other two brothers, on the other, clearly demonstrates that late Sat yam was in possession of the shares of himself and that of the father of the respondent. 8. The trial Court framed the following five issues, on the basis of the pleadings before it. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint A and B schedule properties as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the future profits? 3. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. Boni Tata, who are also stated to be the joint family members? 4. Whether the registered will executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and Paturi Krishna, the husband of the 2nd defendant on 25-2-81 is binding on the plaintiff? 5. 3. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. Boni Tata, who are also stated to be the joint family members? 4. Whether the registered will executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and Paturi Krishna, the husband of the 2nd defendant on 25-2-81 is binding on the plaintiff? 5. Whether the cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not correct? 9. To prove his case, the first respondent examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and filed Exs. A-1 and A-2, the Lawyers notice got issued by him and the reply thereto respectively. On behalf of the appellants, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex. B-1 was filed. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree. For disposal of the appeal preferred by the appellants herein, the lower appellate Court framed the following points, for its consideration: 1. Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint A and B Schedule properties and for separate possession and for future profits? 2. Whether the will executed by the first appellant-1st defendant is binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of Tata and Jogi Naidu? 10. In this Second Appeal, three questions of law arise for consideration viz., (1) Whether the burden to prove that the partition among the coparceners was partial and incomplete in nature does not rest upon the person, who pleads it; and whether the respondent discharged his burden, in this regard; (2) Once the partition is pleaded, whether it would be competent for anyone of the sharers or persons, claiming through them, to seek further partition, without proving the re-union and (3) Whether the suit for partition can be filed without impleading all the coparceners. 11. The respondent categorically pleaded that his father and three paternal uncles, one of whom is the husband of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3 (Satyam), partitioned their properties several decades prior to the filing of the suit. No one connected or acquainted with the said partition was examined as a witness. He pleaded that the partition was effected in such a way that the shares of his father and that of Satyam were kept together. The other two sharers are said to have been allotted their individual shares. He failed to explain, as to whether the partition was partial or complete, in its purport. He pleaded that the partition was effected in such a way that the shares of his father and that of Satyam were kept together. The other two sharers are said to have been allotted their individual shares. He failed to explain, as to whether the partition was partial or complete, in its purport. Even if the plea of the respondent is to be accepted, two contingencies can be contemplated. The first is that the joint family, property was divided into four shares and the shares allotted to the father of the respondent and Sat yam were kept together. The second is that the total property is divided into two halves, out of which, one half, comprising of the moieties of the father of the respondent and Sat yam, is kept aside and other half is divided between the other two brothers. 12. If the first contingency existed, the remedy, which the respondent ought to have pursued, was to seek recovery of the identified share, earmarked for his father, kept under the administration of Sat yam. The question of seeking partition only vis-avis the appellants would have arisen, if only the second contingency existed. This would have meant that the partition was incomplete and partial, in its purport, and the burden to prove this was squarely upon the respondent. The record discloses that he did not at all prove this fact. Having admitted that a partition took place among the four brothers, the respondent ought to have clearly explained the circumstances, under which the shares of two brothers, remained in tact. Therefore, the first question is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent. 13. The second question is, in a way, related to the first one. Whenever the partition in a joint family takes place, each coparcener or sharer is expected to be in possession and enjoyment of his respective share. Even where some of them live together, by enjoying their respective shares jointly, the occasion to seek further partition does not arise. Reunion of shares of coparceners after partition is not prohibited in law. In such cases, the identity of the shares, which were allotted to the sharers, who lived together, after partition, get dissolved. This, however, is a fact, which must be specifically pleaded and proved. Reunion of shares of coparceners after partition is not prohibited in law. In such cases, the identity of the shares, which were allotted to the sharers, who lived together, after partition, get dissolved. This, however, is a fact, which must be specifically pleaded and proved. The respondent could not have claimed partition against Sat yam or his legal heirs, unless he has pleaded re-uninon of the shares of his father and that of Sat yam. Here again, the evidence is totally lacking and there did not exist any basis for the respondent, to claim partition against the appellants alone. 14. The fact that the father of the appellant went in illitom to a different family assumes significance. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 discloses that consequent upon the partition, the respective sharers started enjoying their shares exclusively by themselves. The respondent did not place any material before the trial Court, to disclose that his father enjoyed any item of the suit schedule property, either exclusively or along with late Sat yam. Therefore, this question also deserves to be answered against the respondent. 15. In view of the stand taken by the appellants, serious dispute existed, as to the very nature of partition that took place among the four brothers. The appellants specifically pleaded that the suit schedule properties have fallen to the share of late Sat yam. If the said property was to be divided, the share of Sat yam virtually gets reduced to half, and thereby, the partition among the brothers became liable to be reopened. Such a course could have been possible, if only the branches of all the brothers are made parties to the suit. The respondent did not implead the legal representatives of his other two uncles. Thereby, the suit became incompatible, on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. 16. This Court is of the view that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, violate the settled principles of law relating to partition. The uncertain and inconsistent version presented by the respondent could not have constituted the basis, for directing partition of the properties held by the branch of one of the four brothers, particularly when the relevant aspects, referred to above, were not proved. 17. Hence, the Second Appeal is allowed and the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court, and affirmed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. 17. Hence, the Second Appeal is allowed and the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court, and affirmed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.