A partition suit requires inclusion of all necessary parties to adjudicate claims on communal property, ensuring rights are accurately represented and adjudicated.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

The present first appeal is filed by defendants No.1 and 2 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘ the CPC’], calling in question the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019 passed in O.S. No.63/2015 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikkodi[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’, for short], whereunder the suit for the partition filed by respondents No.1 to 5/plaintiffs has been decreed by the Trial Court.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Girimalla Ningappa Solabannavar, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Propositus’,] died leaving behind his two sons namely Basappa and Balappa who succeeded to the properties of the Propositus equally. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that Basappa died leaving behind a son namely Dundappa and three daughters namely Gangawwa, Akkawwa and Rupawwa, whereas Balappa died leaving behind his sons Chandrappa (plaintiff No.1), Shankar (plaintiff No.2), Mallappa (plaintiff No.3), Appasab (plaintiff No.4) and Maruti, as also the daughters namely Dundawwa, Neelawwa, Savitri and Mahadevi. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the share of Basappa in the suit properties was changed in the name of his son Dundappa and upon Dundappa’s death in favour of his sons namely Raju (defendant No.1) and Shivanand (defendant No.2). The sons of Balappa, along with the son of Maruti namely Santosh (plaintiff No.5) filed the suit seeking for half share in the suit properties, inter alia, contending that no partition was effected between Basappa and Balappa.

4. The sons of deceased Dundappa (son of deceased Basappa) were arrayed as defendants No.1 and 2, and upon service of notice, they have entered appearance through their counsel. However, no written statement was filed. Plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.1. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 were marked in evidence. The defendants neither cross-examined P.W.1 nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The Trial Court framed three points for consideration and by the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019 decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to half share of the suit properties.

5. Being aggrieved the defendant No.1 and 2 have filed the present appeal.

6. Along with the appeal, the appellants have filed I.A. No.1/2023 under Order LXI Rule 27 of the CPC seeking to place on record the certified copies of the record of rights of the suit properties.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant No.1 and 2, in addition to the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, contends that the plaintiffs have not put forth the true facts in the plaint and have not arrayed all the members of the joint family as parties to the suit. It is specifically averred that the daughters of Balappa and Basappa have not been arrayed as parties to the suit. It is further contended that three house properties belonging to the joint family have not been included in the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that although the defendants were served with the suit summons and they were represented by the counsel, due to various reasons including the fact that attempts were being made to amicable resolve the matter between the parties, the defendants did not file their written statement and did not contest the suit on merits. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants seeks for allowing of the above appeal and remanding the matter to the Trial Court to afford another opportunity to the defendants to contest the suit on merits.

8. Per contra, learned couns