( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision lie within a short compass. In a suit for partition of joint family property between the coparceners, the applicant Mst. Gomati Bai filed an application before the trial Court, saying that her father who was a member of co-parcenary, as far back as the 16th April, 1936, had served a notice on the co-parceners of his intention to severe joint family status, and that her father being dead she is entitled to her father's share in the property in dispute. The plaintiffs agreed to make her a party but the defendants resisted it mainly on the ground that Bankelal had an adopted son named Munnalal and that in his presence Mst. Gomati Bai cannot be made a party. The decision of the learned trial Court is slip-shod. He has not at all applied his mind and has brushed aside the question by saying that the said Munnalal is prosecuting this case. But it is neither here nor there. He is not on record as the son of Bankelal. Order 1, Rule 10, Clause 2 of the Civil P. C. , lays down that the court must determine whether a person who has applied for being added as a party is or is not a necessary party to enable the Court effectually and c