Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Sapinder Singh legal representative of original plaintiff Sher Singh since deceased has filed this second appeal having been non-suited by both the courts below.

2. Sher Singh plaintiff filed suit for possession of half share by partition of the residential house constructed in khasra no. 1588 measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas situated in village Sherpur alleging that plaintiff Sher Singh and defendant respondent Jang Singh (both brothers) are owners in joint possession of the suit house in equal shares.

3. The defendant set up family partition according to which the suit house fell to his exclusive share whereas land of village Inna Bajwa fell to the share of the plaintiff.

4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2008 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit on the ground of non-joinder of other co-sharers and also on the ground of partial partition although plea of defendant regarding family partition was also negatived. First appeal filed by plaintiff’s legal representative has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by legal representative of the plaintiff.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. Counsel for the appellant contended that only plaintiff and defendant were co-sharers in the suit house and there was no other co-sharer therein. It was pointed out that even the defendant did not raise any objection of non-joinder of any other co-sharer. It was also contended that property in village Inna Bajwa is owned not only by plaintiff and defendant but also by other co-sharers and therefore, the same could not be included in the present suit relating to suit house in which only plaintiff and defendants are co-sharers. It was thus argued that the suit is neither bad for non-joinder of other co-sharers nor bad for partial partition.

7. On the contrary, counsel for respondent contended that the plaintiff himself admitted that property in village Inna Bajwa is also joint property of the parties and therefore, the suit has been rightly held to be bad for partial partition. It was also contended that in all, there were four brothers out of whom one had died and the plaintiff did not implead the third brother as party to the suit and therefore, the suit has been rightly held to be bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Jamabandi relating to suit property reveals that only plaintiff and defendant were the co-sharers therein to the extent of half share each and their third brother was not co-sharer in the suit property. Consequently, it cannot be said that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It is highly significant to notice that even defendant in his written statement did not remotely whisper that there was any other co-sharer in the suit property. The only plea taken by the defendant was regarding family partition in which suit house allegedly fell to his exclusive share. The defendant miserably failed to prove the said plea. It is thus manifest that only plaintiff and defendant being co-sharers in the suit property, the suit cannot be said to be bad for non-joinder of any other co-sharer or necessary party.

9. As regards partial partition, the land situated in village Inna Bajwa is not owned exclusively by plaintiff and defendant only but is owned by other co-sharers also. Consequently, the suit property could not be included in the present partition suit which relates to the partition of the suit house owned by plaintiff and defendant exclusively. For this reason, the suit also cannot be said to be bad for partial partition.

10. There is no dispute with the legal preposition that in partition suit all co-sharers have to be impleaded as party and entire joint property has to be included. In the