JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He filed a suit seeking 1/6th share in the suit property. The suit as well as First Appeal were dismissed. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against him, he is before this Court.

2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property was allotted to the share of his father-in-law Thiruvenkada Chettiar in the family partition between Thiruvengada Chettiar and his brother on 26.08.1975 and the respondents are the sons of Thiruvengada Chettiar. The suit was originally filed by the appellant against the respondents, who are the sons of Thiruvengada Chettiar and subsequently the defendants 6 to 8 namely children of appellant were added as defendants 6 to 8. Pending suit, the second defendant Kaliyaperumal died. Therefore, his legal representatives were added as defendants 9 to 11.

3. It was claimed by the appellant that the present suit property was allotted to the share of Thiruvengada Chettiar in the family partition dated 26.08.1975 and taking advantage of poor health of Thiruvengada Chettiar the respondents herein attempted to get a document executed in their favour. Therefore, a pre-suit notice was issued by the appellant to the respondents. The respondents came up with a reply making false allegations. Subsequently, the wife of the appellant and daughter of Thiruvengada Chettiar namely Sivagami died. After two months, the said Thiruvengada Chettiar also died. In these circumstances, the appellant claimed that he and his children namely defendants 6 to 8 were entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property. The suit was resisted by the respondents on the ground that there was a partition between Thiruvengada Chettiar and sons namely the respondents on 30.07.2001 and the suit properties were allotted to the share of fifth defendant namely Raju. Therefore, it was the specific case of the respondents that the suit property belonged to fourth respondent/fifth defendant and the present suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable. The suit was resisted on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties also since the appellant failed to implead the four other daughters of Thiruvengada Chettiar.

4. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the suit for partition filed by the appellant is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, namely other daughters of Thiruvengada Chettiar. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the appellant as PW1 admitted above partition in the year 2001 between Thiruvengada Chettiar and his brother allotting the suit property to the fifth defendant. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to any share in the suit property and dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.18 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Vridhachalam. The first Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

5. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law:

“ 1.Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit and appeal on the ground of non- joinder of parties against the provisions of Order 1 Rule

9 C.P.C.”

2. Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the plea of the plaintiff on account of non- joinder of parties when the plaintiff can obtain complete and effective relief from Courts in respect of the dispute?”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below ought not to have dismissed the suit on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties in view of Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Courts below ought to have offered opportunity to the appellant to implead the sharers and therefore, the dismissal of the suit on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties is liable to