L. M. GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) TITLE Suit No. 4 of 1978 was filed by the plaintiffs in the 3rd Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Midnapore. That was a suit for partition. After hearing both. the parties and on going through the record, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on contest against the contesting defendants and ex parte against the rests. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against that judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, dismissing the suit. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY the suit properties - the Ka, Kha, Ga and Gha schedule properties - originally belonged to one Bikram Maiti, who died in or about 1300 B. S. Bikram left two sons, Pitambar and Trailakya. Pitambar died in 1316 B. S. and Trailakya died in 1331 B. S. Mukundaram was the son of Pitambar. Mukundaram died in 1355 B. S. , leaving five sons (defendants 1 to 4 and Haripada and two daughters, (the defendants 5 and 6 ). Mukundaram had another son, Haripada, who died in 1357 B. S. Haripada left no issue. Rajbala, the widow of Haripada, died in 1364 B. S. So that, according to the genealogy, the interest of Mukunda developed upon the defendants 1 to 6. Giribala, the wife of Trailakya, died after him. Sashi and Satish were the sons left by Trailakya. Charubala was the wife of Sashi, Satish is the plaintiff No. 2, Khudiram, the plaintiff No. 1, is the son of Sashi. Charubala, the wife of Sashi, died sometime 1981. So, aocording to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 acquired 8 annas interest in the ancestral properties and the defendants 1 to 6 got the other 8 annas share. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the properties all along remained joint, although the records of right were somehow misleading. Some plots were recorded as ejmali and some plots were recorded in the exclusive possession of this or that party. According to the plaintiff, the parties, in accordance with their shares, let out two korfa tenants. Ultimately, the korfa tenants relinquished their interest, On the premises that the suit properties were never partitioned by metes and bounds, the plaintiffs claimed 8 annas share in the properties and prayed for a partition decree accordingly. ( 3 ) THE defendants 1 to 6 filed one written statement. Ultimately, the korfa tenants relinquished their interest, On the premises that the suit properties were never partitioned by metes and bounds, the plaintiffs claimed 8 annas share in the properties and prayed for a partition decree accordingly. ( 3 ) THE defendants 1 to 6 filed one written statement. They pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties. Specially, they submitted that Charubala, the mother. of the plaintiff No. 1, was a necessary party in the suit. It was also their case that the properties, except some 9 plots, were partitioned long before, in between 1304 B. S. and 1310 B. S. The properties having already been partitioned, as the defendants urged, there could not be any question of further partition. The defendants 55 to 58, the defendant No 61, the defendants 39 to 41, the defendant No. 54, the defendant Nos. 59 and 60, filed separate written statements. They are the subsequent purchasers from the sons of Mukundaram. They supported the case of the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. ( 4 ) MR. Ashok Kumar Sengupta, the learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants, has submitted that the learned Court below erred, since in the absence of any deed for partition, he should not have accepted the case of previous partition. The properties, according to Mr. Sengupta, were never partitioned by metes and bounds. He has also made grievance as to awarding of the costs by the learned Court below. His further submission has been that admittedly some properties are joint and the learned Court below should not have dismissed the whole suit on the premises that there was previous partition, As to the non-joinder of Charubala, the submission of Mr. Sengupta has been that she was not in possession of any of the properties and so Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, could not be attracted. ( 5 ) MR. Anil Kumar Seth, appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1-4, 39 to 41, 54, 61 and 64, has argued that the suit was bound to fail, because Charubala's heirs were not brought on the record. According to him, the appeal must also fail, because there cannot be any adjudication on any issue in the absence of a necessary party. ( 6 ) BEFORE entering into any further question, it is necessary to dispose of first the point of non-joinder of parties. According to him, the appeal must also fail, because there cannot be any adjudication on any issue in the absence of a necessary party. ( 6 ) BEFORE entering into any further question, it is necessary to dispose of first the point of non-joinder of parties. Because, if in any partition suit a necessary party is left out, no effective decree can be passed under any circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary to first decide whether Charubala had acquired any interest in any of the properties, and consequently, whether her heirs are necessary parties. ( 7 ) FROM the genealogy referred to above, it would appear that Charubala, as the widow of Sashi, should have acquired interest in some of the properties at least. Charubala died on 22nd February, 1981. In this Court, on behalf of the Respondents, an affidavit has been filed to that effect. It has also been furnished that Charubala left four daughters - Sova Samanta, Provabati Maity, Bibhabati Santra and Rebati Paria. It has not been controverted that Charubala died on the date mentioned or that she left the daughters named before. Therefore, if Charubala acquired some interest in the properties, her daughter must be brought on the record. ( 8 ) MR. Sengupta, the learned Advocate for the appellants, has contended that Charubala did not acquire any interest in the properties and Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act could not be pressed into service. His argument has been that in order to attract Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, it must be proved that the property was possessed by the Hindu female, According to Mr. Sengupta, Charubala never possessed any of the properties and so there could not be any question of her limited interest ripening into absolute interest under Section 14. We are unable to accept this contention. It has been settled that the word "possessed" must be given a broad meaning. There was considerable diversity of judicial opinions on the meaning and effect of the expression "possessed". But that has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of Kotturuswami vs. Veeravva (1959) Supl. (1) S. C. R. , 968, (1950) S. C. 577, (1959) S. C. J. 437. Possession, as interpreted by the decision, is the state of owning and having in one's hand or power. But that has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of Kotturuswami vs. Veeravva (1959) Supl. (1) S. C. R. , 968, (1950) S. C. 577, (1959) S. C. J. 437. Possession, as interpreted by the decision, is the state of owning and having in one's hand or power. That is to say, it is co-existent with title, more so in case of co-sharers. Therefore, if Charubala had some interest in the properties before the Act of 1956 came into force, by virtue of Section 14 of the said Act, she became the absolute owner. Her heirs cannot be ignored under any circumstances. ( 9 ) MR. Sengupta has next argued that in order to become an absolute owner, Charubala must have been a limited owner at least before coming into force of the 1956 Act. He has submitted that the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, applied only to non-agricultural properties and therefore, Charubala had no interest whatsoever in the suit properties, Whether apart from the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, Charubala could have had some interest, that question need not be gone into, because on the plaint showing itself, there are properties other than agricultural properties. Mr. Sengupta has referred to the decision reported in A. I. R. 1941 Federal Court 72 which lays down the principle that the Hindu Women's Right to property Act does not operate to regulate succession to agricultural land. That is undoubtedly the law. But the same decision has laid down that the said Act of 1937 does operate to regulate devolution by survivorship of property other than agricultural land. So, under any circumstances, Charubala must have had some interest in some of the properties, which are not agricultural. Such being the position, Charubala's interest in these properties must have ripened into the absolute interest after the coming into operation of the 1956 Act. Therefore, the daughters of Charubala are absolutely essential parties and if any decree for petition is passed in their absence, that would not be effective decree. ( 10 ) IT has thus been noticed that some necessary parties, the daughters of Charubala, have been left out. Such being the position, we think that it is unnecessary to go into other questions. Because there cannot be any adjudication on any issue at all, in the absence of the necessary parties. ( 10 ) IT has thus been noticed that some necessary parties, the daughters of Charubala, have been left out. Such being the position, we think that it is unnecessary to go into other questions. Because there cannot be any adjudication on any issue at all, in the absence of the necessary parties. The position being as it is the suit is either to be dismissed and the appeal is also to be dismissed on that basis, or the plaintiffs have to be given a chance to add the persons left out. We feel that it would be more expedient and in accordance with justice that the plaintiffs should be given a chance to implead the necessary parties. We would, therefore, send back the case on remand to the trial court for giving the plaintiffs chance to implead the daughters of Charubala. ( 11 ) THE appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned court below, dismissing the suit, are hereby set aside and the case is sent back on remand to the court below for giving plaintiffs/appellants chance to implead the daughters of Charubala. The plaintiffs/appellants are given chance to bring on record the daughters of Charubala within two months from the date of the service of the notice on the plaintiffs/appellants of the arrival of the record in the court below, or within such extended time as may be granted by the Court. If the plaintiffs/appellants add the persons by amendment, the, added defendants will get the normal chance to file written statements. The defendants who are already parties must also be given chance to file additional written statements, if any. After all these legal processes have been observed, the learned court below will dispose of the suit on merits and according to law, on the basis of the evidence already on record and on the basis of the further evidence, that may be adduced. We make no order as to costs. In case the plaintiffs do not avail themselves of the chance for impleading the parties, the learned court below will dismiss the suit. The application filed in this Court, stating certain facts, is also disposed of No formal decree need be drawn up. The records be sent down to the court below. S. P. Das Ghosh, J. I agree. Appeal allowed. .