The duty to provide particulars of other purchasers in a partition suit and the need to identify shares in the absence of other purchasers in the survey field are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit for partition, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 2008, before the learned Principal District Judge, Erode to divide the suit properties into 2 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs.

4. After contest, the suit was dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties.

5. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows:

The suit property was originally purchased by one Nachimuthu, father of the 1st plaintiff in the year 1970. The said Nachimuthu died leaving behind the 1st plaintiff and his brother one Rangasamy. Therefore, both of them are entitled to get equal share in the suit properties. The 1st plaintiff and his brother Rangasamy have jointly sold an extent of 43 cents out of 88-7/48 to the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed dated 26.12.1995. The 1st defendant, who is doing real estate business, had purchased several properties surrounding the suit properties. The plaintiff's brother Rangasamy has sold = share out of 45-7/48 for paltry amount. Armed with the above sale deed, now the 1st defendant executed a Power of Attorney deed in favour of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant had sold several sites around the suit properties. In the meantime, the plaintiffs entered into a sale agreement with one S.Venkatasamy of Erode with regard to their share in the suit properties. After the sale agreement, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants were attempting to annex the suit properties along with their land purchased around the suit properties. Hence, the suit.

6. The brief averments made in the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant are as follows:

It is the contention of the 2nd defendant that he has obtained Power of Attorney for several lands from the 1st defendant and others. He laid out by forming roads in about 55 acres named Cauvery Nagar and has sold out the plots to third parties, who are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The field R.S.No.49 have been divided into plots and sold to 172 persons on 04.10.2006. Similarly, the fields in R.S.No.7 and 8 have also been divided into plots and sold to 95 persons from 25.02.2004 to 12.11.2005. The said purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots from the date of their respective purchase. Even assuming that the plaintiffs have some semblance of title, they have lost that by efflux of time. Except the extent of land sold to the 1st defendant the said late Nachimuthu and his sons have lost title by adverse possession. It is also denied that the defendants are attempting to annex the suit properties along with their land purchased around the suit properties. Hence the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as claimed in the plaint?

2. Whether the 2nd defendant derived title by adverse possession as claimed?

3. Whether the sale agreement dated 08.5.2007 executed by plaintiffs and S.Venkidusamy is true?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as alleged?

5. To what relief if any the plaintiffs are entitled to?

8. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A15 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs. B1 to B4 were marked.

9. Though the trial Court has found that the plaintiffs are entitled to get share in the suit properties, it dismissed the suit on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties. Against which the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. The defendants have not filed any cross appeal with regard to the finding of the trial Court.

10. Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has submitted that the plaintiffs ar