In a suit for partition, every co-sharer is a necessary party, and the failure to bring the legal representatives of a deceased co-sharer on record within the prescribed time can result in the abatement of the entire suit.

This civil second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Anantnag, dated June 5. 1970, upholding the order dated April 15, 1964, of the Munsiff Kulgam dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that it had abated in toto because of his failure to bring on record the legal representatives of the first defendant viz- Amma Nanwai within the time prescribed by Article 177 of the Limitation Act.

2. It appears that a suit for possession by partition of land comprised in Khasra No. 1475 situate in Kulgam was brought by the appellant in the Court of Munsiff, Kulgam, against respondents 3 to 7 and Amma, the father and husband respectively of respondents 1 and 2 herein. During the pendency of the suit Amma defendant died and an application for bringing his legal representatives on record was made by the appellant on March 22, 1966. It, however, transpired that the application was made more than a year after the death of Amma. Accordingly the learned trial court dismissed the application. It further held that Amma being a necessary party to the suit and steps for substituting his legal representatives not having been taken in time, the suit abated in its entirety. On appeal the learned District Judge upheld the order passed by the Munsiff. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

3. In a suit for partition of a joint holding every co-sharer has a joint and indivisible interest in every inch of it and each one of the co-sharers is a necessary party to the suit. In the absence of any of the co-sharers and in case of his death of his legal representatives, it is not possible to determine effectively the rights and interests of the remaining co-sharers who are before the Court and grant necessary relief to the plaintiff.

In the present case, Amma co-sharer having died and his legal representatives not having been brought on the record within the time allowed by law the suit ceased to be properly constituted and could not proceed to a final adjudication. In State of Punjab Versus Nathu Ram, A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court 89, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, observed as follows: -

"The question whether a Court can deal with such matters or not, will depend on the facts of each case and therefore no exhaustive statement can be made about the circumstances when this is possible or is not possible. It may, however, be stated that ordinarily the considerations which weigh with the Court in deciding upon this question are whether the appeal between the appellants and the respondents other than the deceased can be said to be properly constituted or can be said to have all the necessary parties for the decision of the controversy before the Court. The test to describe this has been described in diverse forms. Courts will not proceed with an appeal (a) when the success of the appeal may lead to the Courts coming to a decision which would be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent and therefore which would lead to the Courts passing a decree which will be contradictory to the decree which had become final with respect to the same subject matter between the appellant and the deceased respondent; (b) when the appellant could not have brought the action for the necessary relief against those respondents alone who are still before the Court and (c) when the decree against the surviving respondents, if the appeal succeeds, be ineffective, that is to say, it could not be successfully executed."

In Churaman Mahto and others Versus Bhat Mahto and ors. A.I.R. 1935 Patna 241, Fazal Mohamad Khan V. All Mohammad Khan and others, A.I.R. 1935 Oudh 36, and Ramnath Kisanlal Versus Ramgopal Bhaulal and ors., A.I.R. 1951 Nagpur 434, it was held that in a partition suit every one of the co-sharer