JUDGMENT 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal. It is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd A.D.J. Khargone. By the impugned judgment and decree, lower appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction. 2. Admittedly, defendant No. 1 and 2 Tejubai and Supdibai are the real sisters of plaintiff No. 1-Dhapubai whereas defendant No. 5 is the husband of their predeceased sister Merubai. Defendant No. 3 and 4 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and 2. The property in dispute is the agriculture Lands of late Bhilya, father of Plaintiff No. 1 and defendants No. 1and 2. 3. As per plaint allegations, plaintiff No. 1 being the youngest daughter was an apple of eye of late Bhilya, therefore, after her marriage with the plaintiff No. 2, both continued to reside and live with Bhilya. They looked after Bhilya and managed his affairs including cultivation over the land in dispute. It was alleged that Bhilya died intestate in the year 2001, therefore his interest would devolve exclusively upon the plaintiffs as per custom and usage and not upon other surviving members. It was further alleged that defendants were trying to interfere in the possession over the land in dispute, therefore, the suit for permanent injunction. 4. In their written statement, defendants denied the claim of plaintiffs that they exculusively succeeded to the Bhilya’s interest in the agricultural land in dispute as per custom or usage. They also denied existence of any such usage and custom. They claimed upon death of Bhilya, his daughters jointly succeeded and each had equal share. They also filed a counter-claim claiming 1/4th share in the land in dispute. With these pleadings parties went to trial. 5. Trial Judge, on due consideration of evidence found no merit and substance in case set up by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, trial Court found that defendants were able to establish their counter-claim, accordingly while dismissing plaintiffs’ suit, a partition decree was passed in favour of respondents. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, plaintiffs, went up in appeal but to no avail. As already stated, lower appellate Court maintained the dismissal of the suit while affirming the decree of partition passed in favour of respondents. Hence, this second appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for appellants at length. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, plaintiffs, went up in appeal but to no avail. As already stated, lower appellate Court maintained the dismissal of the suit while affirming the decree of partition passed in favour of respondents. Hence, this second appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for appellants at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and decree and other material available on record. 7. Learned counsal referring to section 332 of Mulla’s Hindu Law (21st Edition) submitted that a member suing for partition is bound to bring into hotchpot all family property in order that there may be complete and final partition between coparceners. In this connection he submitted that since defendants did not include the residential house of Bhilya in their counter-claim, therefore, it was liable to be dismissed and Court below erred in -allowing the counter-claim. We do not find any merit in the submission. The submission ignores the fact that a partition may be partial either in respect of property or in respect of the person making it. It is open to the members of joint family to make a division and severance of interest in respect of a part of the joint estate. See Sec. 325 of Mulla’s Hindu Law. In this of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that two Courts below have recorded pure findings of fact on proper appreciation of evidence and such findings do not give rise to any question of law much less any substantial question of law. 8. From the above discussion it seems to us that this appeal has no substance and as such deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the threshold but no orders as to costs. 9. Ordered accordingly.