JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants on the admission of the appeals under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. 2. These Second Appeals, numbered as RSA 176/2015 and RSA 177/2015 are preferred by the defendant No. 2 of the suits against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, in Title Appeal No. 30/2011 and Title Appeal No. 31/2011 arising out of the common judgment dated 09.05.2011, and decree dated 16.05.2011, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 351/2007 and Title Suit No. 8/2008. Title Suit No. 351/2007 was filed by one Mitali Das and Title Suit No. 8/2008 was filed by one Smt. Tapasi Sarkar, both being sisters of defendant No. 1 in both the suits, Prasenjit Das, who is no more. Plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 in the suits are daughters and son, respectively, of Prasanta Kumar Das. 3. In Title Suit No. 351/2007, the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 8/2008 is arrayed as pro forma defendant No. 18, and the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 351/2007 is arrayed as pro forma defendant No. 18 in Title Suit No. 8/2008. 4. Mr. Deka, learned counsel has submitted that almost identical averments have been made in both the suits. 5. Plaint version of both the suits are that defendant No. 2 purchased 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land from the defendant No. 1, described in Schedule-B of the plaint, which is within Schedule-A. Father of the plaintiff had purchased the Schedule-B land by a registered sale deed dated 22.07.88 from one Matilal Basak and was exclusively possessing the same till his death in the year 1997 and, upon his death, his daughters as well as the son acquired right, title and interest in the land, described in Schedule-B, to the extent of 1/3rd share of the land each, which, in other words, measures 8 Lecha of land each. Schedule-A comprises 6 Bigha 18 Lecha of land, including the 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land purchased by the defendant No. 2. Schedule-A comprises 6 Bigha 18 Lecha of land, including the 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land purchased by the defendant No. 2. The father of the plaintiff was residing in a part of the Schedule-A land measuring 1 Bigha 8 Lecha with his parents, brothers and sisters and the plaintiff’s grand-mother, Kalidashi, is having right, title and interest in respect of the balance area of the land in Schedule-A, excluding Schedule-B. The proximate cause for filing the suit was the revelation that the defendant No. 1 sold out the self-acquired property of the father of the plaintiff, measuring 1 Katha 5 Lecha, to the defendant No. 2 vide three registered sale deeds. Enquiries had further revealed that mutation was recorded in the name of the defendant No. 1 as the only legal heir of Late Prasanta Kumar Das. Accordingly, suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest; recovery of possession and for partition of Schedule-B land along with declaration of the sale deeds to be ineffective and inoperative in the eye of law, etc. 6. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement cum counter-claim. Death of Prasanta Kumar Das, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 is admitted. So also the fact that Prasanta Kumar Das had purchased 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land, which was shown as Schedule-Y in the written statement cum counter-claim. It is pleaded that Prasanta Kumar Das had separated his son, namely, Prasenjit Das, defendant No. 1 and, accordingly, he had constructed a house. In the counter-claim, Schedule-A land is described as Schedule-X. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 1 along with his family resided with his father over the land described as Schedule-X. It is also admitted that mutation was recorded in favour of defendant No. 1 as heir of Late Prasanta Kumar Das. It is pleaded that as the defendant No. 1 was suffering from serious disease, he had sold the suit property, which was initially sought to be purchased by Bangshi Das, who is the brother of Prasanta Kumar Das, at a cheap rate. The defendant No. 1 did not do so and, as a result, the plaintiffs were instigated by Bangshi Das to file the suits. Accordingly, prayer was made in the counter-claim for declarations that the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 and pro forma defendant Nos. The defendant No. 1 did not do so and, as a result, the plaintiffs were instigated by Bangshi Das to file the suits. Accordingly, prayer was made in the counter-claim for declarations that the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 and pro forma defendant Nos. 17 have joint right, title and interest over Schedule-X land, that the defendant No. 1 has right, title and interest and saleable right in respect of Schedule-X land to defendant No. 2 and that defendant No. 2 has right, title, interest and possession over Schedule-Y land and for partition of Schedule-Y land, etc. 7. Defendant No. 1 was not alive when the defendants’ evidence had begun and none of his substituted heirs or any other member of the family was examined with regard to the alleged separation, a plea taken in the written statement. The courts below held that each of the plaintiffs has 1/3rd share in Schedule-B land, measuring 8 Lecha each and further held that no title passes to defendant No. 2. It is also held that joint title standing in favour of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 remained intact as the defendant No. 1 could not have sold the suit land to convey exclusive title to the defendant No. 2 over the entire Schedule-B land. The learned courts below have also held that the sale deeds could not be declared as valid also on the ground that despite the suit property being situated at Barpeta Road with a Sub-Registrar Office, the deed had been registered at Barpeta Town, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Barpeta Road Sub-Registry. 8. Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no dispute that in the pleading the plaintiff of both the suits had referred to Schedule-A land wherein their father had a share and, therefore, partial partition in respect of Schedule-B land cannot be carried out without partitioning the whole of Schedule-A. For facilitating the same, necessary parties were on record and, therefore, according to him a substantial question of law arises as to whether the courts below could have decreed the suit of the plaintiff without partitioning the Schedule-A land also. 9. I am not inclined to accept that any such substantial question of law arises in the instant case. 9. I am not inclined to accept that any such substantial question of law arises in the instant case. In the first place, Schedule-B land is a distinct plot of land which was self-acquired property of the father of the plaintiff(s) and defendant No. 1. No prayer was made by the plaintiff in both the suits for partition of Schedule-A land, which is apparently a joint family property standing in the name of the grand-mother of the plaintiff(s). There is no dispute relating to the identity of the land described in Schedule-B and partition in respect of Schedule-B is confined to the legal representatives of deceased Prasanta Kumar Das and nobody else. Therefore, it is not a case where partial partition has been effected. The necessity to file the suit had arisen only because of the fact that the defendant No. 1 had sold the self-acquired property of the father depriving the plaintiffs of their respective shares. It is also appearing from the averments made in the plaint that the plaintiffs were not seeking any share of land standing in the name of their grand-mother. When, admittedly, Prasanta Kumar Das had left behind three children in the form of plaintiffs in the two suits and defendant No. 1, the courts below rightly concluded that the defendant No. 1 alone could not have transferred the entire property, namely, Schedule-B land, to the defendant No. 2 and, therefore, I find that there is no merit in these appeals and, accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No cost. 10. Registry will send back the records.