Non-joinder as necessary parties held bad.

1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and declaration. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs case is thus:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property, having obtained the same in a partition that took place about 50 years age. The plaintiff and before him, his ancestors were in possession of the specific portions. There are ridges, showing the divisions. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd right in the suit well. The plaintiff has been given separate patta in the re-survey proceedings. The plaintiffs has put up pipes and is taking water to S.F.No.195/B, measuring 1-84 cents. It cannot be questioned by the defendants. The plaintiff is in possession of the property for more than the statutory period and has prescribed title by adverse possession as well. On 26.12.1977 the plaintiff leased out the suit property to one Muruga Gounder, who redelivered the possession to the plaintiff. The defendants cannot question the plaintiffs possession of enjoyment. But on account of enmity, the defendants are denying the title of the plaintiff to the suit properties and also attempting to disturb the plaintiffs peaceful possession. They have no right to do so. Hence, the suit.

3. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which has been adopted by defendants 2 to 4. They contended as follows:

The plaintiff is not entitled to the entire suit property. The plaintiff is entitled to only 1/3rd share in the suit well. The plaintiff is not in possession of the 1 acre and 84 cents in S.No.195/B. The plaintiff is not entitled to take water from the well in S.F.No.178/B to S.F.No.195/B of 179A/1. The defendants 1 to 4 have also shares in S.F.No.179A/1 and they also have no night to take water to 179A/1 from the suit well. The suit well is intended for S.F.Nos.178 and 196 only. It is not admitted that the plaintiff had perfected his title to the property by adverse possession. The alleged lease is not admitted. The plaintiff is not adhering to the turn system in the matter of enjoyment of the well. The plaintiff is entitled only to one day out of six days. The defendants are entitled to lift water 3 days out of 6 days. The defendants 5 to 7 and others are entitled to one day., One Senni Gounder and his pangalis are entitled to one day. They are necessary parties to the suit. Hence, the suit is bad for non joinder of parties, Therefore, the defendants pray that the suit may be dismissed with costs.

4. The 7th defendant filed a a written statement, contending as follows:

The plaintiff is put to strict proof of all the allegations made in the plaint. The lands are not divided by metes and bound. S.No.179 of Koodakarai village, measuring 12.85 acres was enjoyed by all the sharers in common, and out of the said extent 1.40 acres was acquitted by the Government and the compensation amount was shared by all the sharers, and the remaining 11.45 acres of land is being enjoyed in common. The defendant herein gave a notice for division of the properties on 12.4.1981, and the plaintiff had agreed for a division, but has filed the suit, There is no cause of action.

5. Before the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam who tried the suit, the plaintiff examined totally five witnesses, while the defendant examined three witnesses. Exs.A-1 to A-15 and B-1 to B-3 were marked. The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the said decision, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal to the sub court in A.S.No.17 of 1984. The Subordinate Judge, by his judgment dated 1.10.1986, allowed the appeal in part. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have now come forward with this second appeal.

6. At the time when the appeal was admitted, the following question of law was framed for consideration:

Whether the lower appellate court is right in granting the relief of declaration in favour of the plaintiff without impleading all the other co-shares in the suit items, especially when it is adm