Honble SHARMA, J.–Instant appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1982 of the learned Addl. Dist. Judge No. 1 Baran whereby the suit for pre-emption, instituted by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 (for short the plaintiff) was decreed. (2). Suit for pre-emption was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant appellants (for short the defendants) in the trial Court in respect of suit property, on the ground that the plaintiff had been enjoying easementary right in respect of ventilates and drains of his house opened towards the suit property. The defendants No. 6 & 7 on 15.6.1966 sold the suit property by executing sale deed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 5 showing its value as Rs. 6,000/- whereas its actual value was Rs. 3,100/-. The defendants in their written statement denied the averments of the plaintiff and raised objections in respect of maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. As many as four issues were framed by the learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties. The learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence decreed the suit. (3). I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully scanned the impugned judgment and decree. (4). I shall first take up issue No. 1 which reads as under: (English translation) ``Whether Kanhya Lal, Madan Lal, Banshi Dhar, Radha Krishan and Jamna Lal are also the owners of the plaintiffs house being the members of joint family and are necessary parties ? The learned trial Court decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff relying on the oral statements of plaintiff Poonam Chand and his brother Banshi Dhar who were examined as PW 6 and PW 5 respectively. Poonam Chand the plaintiff, stated that on account of partition held between him and his brother some forty years back, all the brother had started residing separately and in 1960 he got the house redeemed from mortgage. PW 5 Banshi Dhar also supported the statement of the plaintiff. No document however was filed by the plaintiff in support of his contention yet the learned trial Court observed that the plaintiff was the sole owner of his house and his other five brothers were not the necessary parties in the suit. (5). Persons who ought to be joined as parties are called necessary parties. No document however was filed by the plaintiff in support of his contention yet the learned trial Court observed that the plaintiff was the sole owner of his house and his other five brothers were not the necessary parties in the suit. (5). Persons who ought to be joined as parties are called necessary parties. They are persons necessary to the constitution of the suit i.e. persons in whose absence no effective decree at all can be passed. In order to claim a right of pre-emption, it is necessary for the plaintiff to allege and.prove that he is the owner of the property on the basis of which he is claiming any right of pre-emption. In Rambhan Wamanrao Joshi & Anr. vs. Ganesh Deorao Patil & Ors. (1), it was held that a rival pre-emptor is a necessary party to a suit for pre-emption. In Lutis Roberto Vaz vs. Roque Silverstre Vaz & Anr. (2), it was held that in a suit by one of the co-owners seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions, other co-owners are not necessary parties in absence of claim of exclusive ownership by plaintiff. (6). In the case on hand the plaintiff alleged that he was the exclusive owner of the property on the basis of which he claimed the right of pre-emption therefore it was necessary for him to implead all his brothers as pre-emptors. Merely on the basis of oral statements of the plaintiff and of his one brother Banshi Dhar it could not have been held that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the house. 1 am of the view that if a property is held jointly by several persons, unless it is legally divi- ded, all such persons are necessary parties in a suit claiming right of pre-emption on the basis of ownership of such property. Therefore issue No. 1 ought to have been decided against the plaintiff by the learned trial Court. (7). 1 am of the view that if a property is held jointly by several persons, unless it is legally divi- ded, all such persons are necessary parties in a suit claiming right of pre-emption on the basis of ownership of such property. Therefore issue No. 1 ought to have been decided against the plaintiff by the learned trial Court. (7). The plaintiff having failed to prove the legal partition of the property on the basis of which he claimed the right of pre- emption, was not entitled to any re- lief in the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties in view of proviso appended to O.1, R.9 CPC which provides thus:- ``R. 9 Mis-joinder and non-joinder-No suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non- joinder of a necessary party. (8). Learned trial Court therefore, committed illegality in deciding issue No. 1 in favour of plaintiff. As necessary parties were not added the suit ought to have been defeated, by reason of non-joinder of necessary parties in view of proviso of Order 1, Rule 9 CPC. (9). In view of aforesaid decision of issue No. 1, it is not necessary for me to discuss and decide issues No. 2 & 3. (10). Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree, stand set aside and suit instituted by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Costs easy.