The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 41, Rule 20, Civil P.C. in determining the competency of adding parties as respondents to an appeal, along with the discretionary power of the Court in making such determinations.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. An objection which ought to have been taken in limine has been raised at the closing stage of a long argument to the effect that the appeal is incompetent on account of certain parties not having been added as respondents. We do not at present propose to sot out the history of this long-drawn litigation, for it is sufficient to state just a few facts in order to deal with the contention raised. This was a partition suit commenced nearly two decades ago and the members of the family to which the action relates owned considerable properties when it started, but they have since been reduced, with the exception of defendant 6, to such straits that some are represented by the assignees in insolvency and the others by the trustees under a composition deed. The only solvent member now of the family is defendant 6 and he is the appellant before us. There are several memoranda of objections in the nature of cross-appeals which have been filed. The principal contesting respondent is defendant 3 represented by the receiver in insolvency and the preliminary objection referred to above has been raised by his counsel, Mr. Venkatarama Sastri. In the action originally the family was divided into three branches, the first consisting of the plaintiff, the second of defendants 1 and 2 and the third of defendants 3 to 8. The preliminary decree of the trial Court passed in 1924 separately allotted to defendant 6 of the third branch a distinct share, the integrity of this branch not having been otherwise disturbed. We must observe that defendants 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 form two sub-families: (1) defendant 3 and his sons defendants 5 and 7, and (2) defendant 4 and his son defendant 8. An appeal from the preliminary decree was filed here and during its pendency defendant 3 was adjudicated insolvent in 1925 and defendant 4 in 1927. With only one aspect of the appellate decree passed by the High Court we are now concerned, namely that it effected a further sub-division of shares as between defendants 3 and 4. The ultimate position as settled by the High Courts decree so far as the shares were concerned was this:

(1) Plaintiff ... ... 1/5th share. (2) Defendants 1 and 2 ... 4/15th share. (3) Defendant 6 ... ... 4/15th share. (4) Defendant 3 and his sons, defendants 5 and 7 ... 2/15th share. (5) Defendant 4 and his son defendant 8 ... 2/15th share.

2. The case went back to the trial Court which in due course passed a final decree which defendant 6 as the appellant now attacks. The preliminary decree which was confirmed by the High Court has held defendants 3 to 8 jointly accountable to the other branches of the family in respect of certain matters, that is to say the question as between defendants 3 to 8 on the one hand and the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 on the other, is concluded by the judgment already pronounced by the High Court; but the point yet remained to be decided, namely as among themselves (i. e. defendants 3 to 8) how much of this common burden was each of the sub-groups to bear?--in other words, how much was to be born by third defendants sub-group consisting of himself and his sons defendants 5 and 7, how much by defendant 4s sub-group consisting of himself and his son defendant 8 and how much by defendant 6? The learned Subordinate Judge, after dealing under various heads with sums of money amounting to several lakhs, passed a final decree containing in the result inter alia the following directions: (i) Defendant 6 shall pay Rs. 2,177-9-0 to the plaintiffs branch, Rs. 10,515-7-6 to defendants 1 and 2 and Rs. 18,385-1-6 to defendant 4s branch. (ii) Defendant 3s branch shall pay defendant 4s branch Rs. 10,932-2-3.

3. Defendant 6 complains that the Subordinate Judge has wrongly apportioned the liability, his contention being that had the learned Judge given effect to correct legal principles, a large amount would have been found payable to him by defendant 3s branch. The preliminary objection arises thus: While