A vague statement that there were other co-owners without anything further could hardly be sufficient to non-suit a party on the ground of non-joinder of parties.

K. SAMPATH, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff was the sole appellant. Pending second appeal she died and her legal representatives have come on record as appellants 2 and 3. She filed suit o. S. Mo. 274/83 before the District Munsifs court, Devakottai, for recovery of Rs. 7102. 51 due from the respondents on the following averments : the first respondents father one Ramanathan chettiar and his brother were doing banking business in Penang with headquarters at Karaikudi. The first appellant had deposited various amounts with the first respondents father commencing from 17. 10. 1959 and on the date of the filing of the suit, it had augmented to 3977. 41 Malaysian Bollars. The said ramanathan Chettiar had forwarded a deposit letter dated 18. 10. 1959 with an agreement to pay higher interest than what was payable at Penang. Ramanathan Chettiar died in or about August, 1982 and his legal representatives, the present respondents, were liable to answer the suit claim, in that they had succeeded to the estate of Ramanathan Chettiar.

( 2 ) THE first respondent filed a written statement alleging that he had no knowledge about the deposit having been made by the appellant with Ramanathan Chettiar at karaikudi as there was no branch of the Banking business firm at Karaikudi, that till the death of Ramanathan Chettiar, both Ramanathan chettiar and Lakshmanan Chettiar were running the Banking business, that it was not a joint family business, that snce Lakshmanan chettiar had not been made a party to the proceedings, the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties. It was further alleged that the Civil court at Devakottai had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in that the contract was entered into at Penang and there was no cause of action in India at Devakottai. The third and the fourth respondents filed a written statement alleging that they were not partners of the business of the firm run at Penang, that they did not possess any assets of the firm run by Ramanathan Chettiar and Lakshmanan chettiar and that they were not liable to answer the claim of the appellant as heirs of deceased Ramanathan Chettiar.

( 3 ) THE trial Court framed the necessary issues and on the oral and the documentary evidence, held that there was no proof of deposit having been made with the said ramanathan Chettiar, that the cause of action had partly arisen at Devakottai and therefore, the Civil Court at Devakottai had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, in that the sister of the first respondent one Amirthavalli achi had not been joined as a party in the suit and so holding the Trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 31. 7,1984. On appeal by the appellant/plaintiff in A. S. No. 31 of 85 to the Sub-Court, Devakottai, the lower Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court with regard to all the issues except on the issue relating to non-joinder of necessary parties. In that view, the lower Appellate Court though found in favour of the appellant on the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED, the present second appeal has been filed. At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were framed for decisions in the second appeal: (1) Have not the Courts below misdirected themselves in law in misconstruing and misinterpreting the provisions of Order I, Rules 1 to 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in declaring that the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of amirthavalli Achi? (2) Have not the Courts below misdirected themselves in law in dismissing the suit for non-joinder of amrithavalli Achi, which plea was not raised by the defendants in their written statement and no issue as to the non-joinder of amirthavalli Achi, which was fatal to the suit, was framed by the trial court? and (3) Have not the Courts below misdirected themselves in law in their failure to grant a decree against such of those partners who have been added a