As per case facts, the original plaintiffs (sisters) sought partition of joint family properties and declaration that their brother's sale of Survey No. 119/2B was binding only to his share. ... The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first Appellate Court partly allowed it, excluding Survey No. 119/2B. Appellants appealed to the High Court, challenging this exclusion, arguing that Survey No. 119/2B was ancestral Mirashi tenancy, improperly dealt with unilaterally. The question arose whether the Appellate Court rightly excluded Survey No. 119/2B from partition, considering its ancestral nature and admissions in the sale deed. Finally, the High Court found that Survey No. 119/2B was ancestral Mirashi tenancy, making the brother's unilateral sale binding only to his share, thus answering the questions in favor of the appellants and modifying the decree to include this property for partition.