Courts must not dismiss partition suits on procedural grounds if all parties can be included; rightful shares can still be adjudicated despite claims of non-joinder.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal filed challenging the appellate decree in Title Appeal No.45 of 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala on 27.07.2016

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents herein as plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the property described in the schedule of the plaint. It is the undisputed fact that the suit land was jointly purchased by Nil Mohan Choudhury and Ranga Mohan Choudhury, both were sons of Hara Sundar Choudhury comprising 50 % share each recorded in Khatian No.671, under Mouja-Ghaniamara, under Bishalgarh Tahashil Kachari. Out of the two original owners, Ranga Mohan Choudhury died on 15.05.1991 leaving the above-named plaintiff-respondents. Subsequently, Nil Mohan Choudhary also died leaving behind the defendant-appellants as his legal heirs. In the meantime, defendant-appellant No.3 sold 40 satak of land by a sale deed, and 38 satak of land was sold orally to the plaintiff-respondent No.1. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondents herein several times requested the defendant-appellants for partition of joint property. In that regard, a village-level meeting was held for resolving the dispute. Application was also filed before the O/C Bishalgarh P.S. Later on, a joint meeting was held on 11.07.2010 but the defendant-appellants denied the assurance of partition given by them in the meeting.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff-respondents in Title Suit (P) 132 of 2010 prayed for a preliminary decree of partition of the suit property according to the entitlement keeping in mind the sold out land by the defendant-appellants herein. The plaintiff-respondents herein further sought for appointment of Survey Commission for affecting the partition in terms of the preliminary decree. They also sought for a decree of declaration of the sale deeds executed by defendant-appellants No.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant-appellant No.3 of land measuring 40 to 38 satak.

4. Defendant-appellants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement jointly denying the entire allegation made by the plaintiff-respondents herein against them. Defendant-Appellant No.3, Smti Niyati Laskar contested the suit by filing a written statement that she purchase the land by a registered sale deed vide No.1-168 dated 08.01.1985 for land measuring 78 satak from Nil Mohan Choudhury, Ranga Mohan Choudhury, and Kalpada Dey with consideration money of Rs.5,000/- and finally published khatain vide No.634 was also published in her name and so she was not a necessary party in the suit. She further stated that after purchase, she is producing all seasonal crops on the land in question and prayed before the Court to strike out her name from the roll of defendants after dismissal.

5. Remaining respondents in that Title suit did not file any written statement.

6. Based on the pleadings of both the parties to the suit, the learned Court below also framed the following issues:-

'(1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature?

(2) Were the suit properties originally belonged to Nil Mohan Choudhury and Ranga Mohan Choudhury, the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff and the defendants of this suit?

(3) Are the sale deeds executed by the defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of land measuring 40 and 28 sataks were illegal and laible to be declared as void?

(4) Are the plaintiff entitled to get decree as prayed for?

(5) What other relief/reliefs the parties to the suit are entitled to get?'

7. The plaintiffs' side has examined two witnesses namely, Sri Sanjit Choudhury and Sri Madhusudan Barman, and some documents were submitted to substantiate the claim of the appellants.

8. On the o