JUDGMENT This second appeal stands admitted on following questions of law: "Whether the learned appellate Court erred in law in granting a decree for mesne profits? & Whether the suit was not maintainable in the absence of joinder of all the parties who had inherited interest in the suit property on the death of Govindram, the father of Kanhaiyalal? Govindram has two sons - Kanhaiyalal and Balmukund. Govindram died some 16 years back (now 19 years). After his death an application was made on 13.11.67byBalmukund for mutation. His name was entered in municipal records on 26.11.67. The house was an ancestral property. Both the brothers claimed 4 share; as such on coming to know about mutation of name in 1980, suit was filed for declaration on allegation that no partition had taken place and both brothers had equal share, as such, the mutation of name was void and the suit was opposed on the ground of limitation and adverse possession. The trial Court held that the suit house being ancestral property both brothers had 1/2 share. It was also held that defendant did not perfect title by adverse possession. Since the suit was filed only for declaration and not also for possession, it was dismissed. An appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree, while defendant filed a cross objection. During the pendency of appeal an application for amendment under O.6, R. 17, C.P.C. was filed amending the plaint, claiming the relief for possession. The application was rejected and cross objection upheld setting aside the finding regarding adverse possession and holding suit barred by limitation. On-second appeal being filed the matter was remanded for giving a finding on relief of possession. On remand, the lower appellate Court allowed the amendment. On hearing parties, it was held that both brothers had half share. Finding on cross-objection regarding adverse possession was set aside, and decree passed for declaring 112 share in the house and decree for partition and mesne profit passed. Hence second appeal on the question of law stated above was admitted. Taking second question of law, "whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?" It was alleged that plaintiff had admitted in evidence that he had four sisters, apart from the brother. As such sisters being heir in class I of Sch. Hence second appeal on the question of law stated above was admitted. Taking second question of law, "whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?" It was alleged that plaintiff had admitted in evidence that he had four sisters, apart from the brother. As such sisters being heir in class I of Sch. u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short the Act) were entitled to a share in the property. Admittedly suit was filed in the year 1980. No such objection of suit being bad for non-joinder taken at any time. There were two rounds of litigation under O.1, R. 13 CPC, such an objection ought to have been taken at the earlier. But question for consideration is whether the sisters be deprived of their right to challenge the judgment and decree to which they were not parties. All the LRs. have been brought on record. They have right to challenge it by separate suits. Had the sisters been joined in the suit, the multiplicity of litigation could have been avoided. In this appeal the question has been raised which goes to the root of the matter. As such retaining the seizure of the matter, the matter is remanded to the lower Appellate Court. The appellant shall amend the plaint and join all sisters as parties to the suit. The lower appellate Court shall decide the share of the parties in the property including the sisters and also issue notices to the newly joined parties, after giving opportunity to the respective parties, leading evidence on the same. Since all the parties are before the Court, the matter can be effectively decided. The finding shall be returned within six months from the date of receipt of the record. Since, the matter is remanded back, question of mesne profit will be decided after receipt of finding on the issue remanded. This appeal shall remain pending.