In a suit for partition, all sharers must be made parties, and the Court should consider pending applications for impleadment before dismissing the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties.

The plaintiff has preferred this regular first appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

3. The plaintiff - Smt. Lakshmamma and defendant - Manju are the children of Rangegowda. Originally, the suit was filed only in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 8/P2 measuring 3 acres situated at Kalalavadi Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The said land was granted to Rangegowda by the Government by its order dated 22-8-1973. The case of the plaintiff is, from the date of grant, Late Rangegowda along with the plaintiff and defendant was in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After the demise of Rangegowda, the defendant was managing the suit schedule property. The defendant taking advantage of the illiteracy and ignorance of the plaintiff, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff changed the revenue documents such as RTC and other documents into his name. He was making all arrangements to sell away the suit schedule property. Thy plaintiff approached him and requested for her legitimate share. She was not given. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and possession. Subsequently, by way of an amendment application, she included a house property bearing No.2391, CH-4, 7th Cross, K.G. Koppal, Mysore, as the second item and she sought for half share in the said property also.

4. The defendant filed a detailed written statement. He denied the plaint allegations but he did not dispute the relationship between the parties. It is his case, after marriage, plaintiff is residing with her husband since 30 years. She has become a member of the husband family and ceased to be a member of the defendant's family. The defendant and his father were jointly cultivating the suit schedule property and after the death of his father, he continues to cultivate the same. Their father died 32 years back. After his death, katha of the property has been made out in his name. The plaintiff did not put forth her claim. Now, the market value of the property has gone up considerably. The present suit is filed for partition. It lacks bona fides. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. The plaintiff is not entitled to any share.

5. After the amendment of the plaint, he also filed an additional written statement. He contended that the suit is barred by limitation. He also contended that, as their mother is not made a party to the proceedings, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule item No. 2 is a joint family property and she is in joint possession thereof?.

2. Whether the defendant proves that this suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?.

3. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation?.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties as prayed?.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed?.

6. What order or decree?.

7. The plaintiff in order to substantiate her claim examined herself as PW.1 and produced 2 documents which are marked as Exs. P1 and P2. On behalf of the defendant, he was examined as DW1 and no documents were produced.

8. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record held that, in so far as item No.2 of the suit schedule property is concerned, though it was included by way of amendment, the plaintiff has not stated the nature of the said property and, therefore, when the plaintiff has failed to prove that it is a joint family property, she is not entitled to any share therein. It held that, as the property belonged her father, he died leaving behind his widow, a son and a daughter. Therefor