JUDGMENT

1. The Second Appeal was admitted on 7/7/1992 on following substantial questions of law :

i. Whether in a suit for partition and possession of the field all the sharers and co-partners are necessary parties ?

ii. Whether suit for partition and possession is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, and therefore, ought to have been dismissed ?

iii. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the observation regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, made by appellate court, in para 10 of the Judgment are proper ?

2. The substantial questions arise from following set of facts :

a. A suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property was filed by the respondents herein against the predecessor of the appellants by name Mr. Gumansing, claiming that they had 1/2 share in the suit property.

b. Though it was not specifically pleaded, the parties are unanimous about the genealogy which is as under :

c. The respondents are the wife and children of Harising who contested the suit by his written statement. He admitted that the suit property was the ancestral property. He also admitted genealogy. He put up a plea of previous partition about 70 years back, however, admitted t