JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is a plaintiff's appeal against a reversing judgment in a suit for perpetual injunction. 2. Plaintiff's case was that the suit plots originally belonged to Govinda Das. Govinda died leaving behind his two sons, Raghu and Madhu. The C.S. record of right stands in the name of Raghu and Madhu. Plaintiff is the son of Raghu. Madhu's wife had predeceased him. Madhu died leaving behind his son Anadi. Anadi died leaving behind his widow Abhamani. There was no partition of the properties. Plot nos.798 and 801 have been recorded as Barihar Mahasul. In C.S. R.O.R. plot no.778 has been recorded as Baunsabari and plot nos.789 and 794 have been recorded as Gharbari. All the plots are integral part of the plaintiff's homestead. They are at a little distance from the residential house intervened by small patches of land. The lands are homestead lands and indispensable for the convenient use and occupation of the undivided dwelling house of the plaintiff and his co-sharer. Taking advantage of illiteracy of Abhamani, the defendants managed to execute the registered sale deeds in their favour in respect of her share in the property. They are the strangers to the family. When they attempted to take possession of the lands, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 3. Defendants no. 7, 11, 15 and 16 filed joint written statement pleading inter alia that the suit plots had been partitioned by metes and bounds between the plaintiff and Madhu in the year 1942. After the death of Madhu, his son Anadi possessed the suit plots. After death of Anadi, his wife Abhamani became the owner in possession of the said lands. To press her legal necessity, she sold the same to them by means of different sale deeds and delivered possession. They are in possession of the properties. The suit plots are not homestead in character. They are not necessary for use and occupation of the dwelling house of the plaintiff standing on his homestead appertaining to plot no.737. The other defendants were set ex parte. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck four issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial court held that there was no complete partition of the suit schedule plots. The suit plots are not integral part of plaintiff's house and homestead. The other defendants were set ex parte. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck four issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial court held that there was no complete partition of the suit schedule plots. The suit plots are not integral part of plaintiff's house and homestead. The same are not necessary for convenient use and occupation of his house and homestead. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.26 of 1980 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Jajpur. Learned lower appellate court partly allowed the appeal holding that the suit plots are not within the vicinity of plaintiff's house and homestead. They are not indispensible for his use and occupation of the dwelling house standing over plot no.737. The suit under Section 44 of the T.P.Act is not maintainable. The suit plots have not been partitioned by metes and bounds. The defendants have not acquired any title over any specific portion of any of those plots. Held so, it permanently restrained the defendants from entering upon the suit plots and allowed the appeal in part. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant, respondent nos.4, 5, 7, 16 and 18 died, whereafter their legal heirs have been substituted. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law enumerated in ground no.1 of the appeal memo. The same is : "1. For that in view of the concurrent finding of fact that there is no partition of the joint family dwelling house, learned appellate court committed substantial error of law in not allowing the entire appeal for issue of injunction against the respondents, the law being well settled that the purchased of the dwelling house of the joint family may be prevented by an order of injunction from exercising any act of joint possession." 6. Heard Mr.R.C.Rath, learned Advocate for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. 7. Mr.Rath, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the courts below came to hold that there was no partition of the properties between the plaintiff and his cosharer. The suit plots are integral part of house and homestead of the plaintiff. Taking advantage of illiteracy of Abhamani, the defendants managed to register the sale deeds in their favour. They are strangers to the family. The suit plots are integral part of house and homestead of the plaintiff. Taking advantage of illiteracy of Abhamani, the defendants managed to register the sale deeds in their favour. They are strangers to the family. In view of the same, the learned trial court committed a manifest illegality in not granting permanent injunction. 8. In Khirode Chandra Ghoshal v. Saroda Prosad Mitra, 1910 (7) CLJ 436, the Calcutta High Court held that the expression 'house' "embraces, not merely the structure or building, but includes also adjacent buildings, cartilage, garden, courtyard, orchard and all that is necessary for the convenient occupation of the house, but not that which is only for the personal use and convenience of the occupier." 9. Taking a cue from Khirode Chandra Ghoshal, this Court in the case of Jati Bewa and others v. Shyam Sundar Sahu and others, 1970 (1) CWR 283, held that the expression "dwelling house" in Section 4 of the Act embraces not merely the structure and building but also includes adjacent buildings, cartilage, garden, courtyard, orchard and all that is necessary for the convenient occupation of the house but not that which is only for the personal use and convenience of the occupier. The question whether a particular plot of adjacent land is or is not necessary for the enjoyment of a house is to be determined on evidence. As the disputed land is situated at some distance from the petitioner's house intervened by the land belonging to the outsiders, it was held that irrespective of the situations of any land, the owner thereof has to put it to some use or other and it is precisely that which the petitioners had done with respect to the disputed land. That they have dug a tank there and their family members take bath therein, or a part of the land is being used as thrashing floor and on another part they raise vegetables are not circumstances on the basis of which one can come to the conclusion that the possession of the disputed land is necessary for the convenient occupation of the dwelling house with the necessary implication that the dwelling house cannot be conveniently occupied without the disputed land. 10. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence, learned appellate court held that there was no partition between the plaintiff and his co-sharer. The suit plot nos. 10. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence, learned appellate court held that there was no partition between the plaintiff and his co-sharer. The suit plot nos. 798, 801, 794 and 789 situated at a good distance of plot no.737 being intervened by the lands and houses of other persons, which has been admitted by the plaintiff, P.W.1. P.W.1 does not claim the intervening lands and house belongs to him and his co-sharer. There is no evidence on record that the suit plots except plot no.801 are in any way necessary for the use and occupation of his house over plot no.737. The suit plots are not within the vicinity of the plaintiff's house and homestead. The said plots are not indispensable for his use and occupation of his dwelling house standing over plot no.737. The suit under Section 44 of the T.P. Act is not maintainable. These are essentially findings of fact. There is no perversity in the said findings. But then in the absence of any cross objection of the defendants, the findings with regard to permanent injunction restraining them from entering upon the suit plots cannot be decided. It is apt to state here that the defendants cross objection has been dismissed for non-prosecution. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.