SELLAMBANA GOUNDER Vs. SINNIA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants herein.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and declaration. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case is thus:

(3.) THE point: THE plaintiff would contend that the properties were divided by metes and bounds and the plaintiff is in possession of definite and specific shares in the items of the property. THE plaintiff has produced only patta book, which has been marked as Ex.A-1. Besides filing the patta, the plaintiff has not produced any other document to establish his contention. THE patta is neither a document of title not it can be accepted to up held the title. It is a best an evidence for permanent of kist and thus there is nothing but a bill of cost. THE other documents produced by the plaintiff are not helpful to the plaintiff to establish his case. In the appeal, the plaintiff filed certain documents such as chitta extract, adangal extract and field map. THEy were ordered to be received as additional evidence in appeal by the Subordinate Judge. I do not find any reasoning in the judgment of the lower appellate court for admitting those documents as additional evidence in appeal. Simply, in para 4, he has stated that certain documents have been produced along with the appeal. In para 11, the lower appellate court has specifically observed that the plaintiff has not joined as parties the other sharers. He has further observed that the plaintiff has not filed any document to show that he is entitled to irrigate the lands in S.Nos.179/A1 and 195/B from the well. Thus the very discussion of the lower appellate court shows that there are other sharers, who were entitled to share in the well and who ought to have been impleaded but yet no impleaded. It is also obvious from the finding of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff has not filed any document to show as to how he is entitled to irrigate the lands in S.Nos.179/A1 and 195/B. In the written statement, a specific plea has been taken that there are other sharers and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. THE lower appellate court has not chosen to consider this objection or give a finding therein. When both the courts have held that there are other sharers entitled to specific shares in the well and when those sharers have not been made parties to the suit, no declaration can be given in their absence.