JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. The Appellant as Defendant No. 3 challenges a part of the Judgment dated 7.5.2010 & decree dated 22.5.2010 passed by the Learned First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)" Cuttack in Civil Suit No. 290 of 2006 decreeing the suit preliminarily on contest against the Defendants for partition holding that the land under Ext. 1 is not the ancestral property of the Plaintiff & as such the suit property is not liable to be partitioned. 2. Respondent No. 1 being Plaintiff filed a suit for partition. According to him the suit property described under Schedules A & B are the joint family ancestral property. Defendant No. 1 is the father of the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 2 is the mother & Defendant Nos. 3 & 6 are son & daughter of Defendant No. 1. They have no right, title & interest over the suit schedule properties. He has further stated that Plaintiff along with Defendant No. 1 to 6 have 1/7th share over the suit schedule A & B property & 1/14th share over the C-Schedule property. As the Plaintiff faced inconvenience & hardship over the joint possession of the suit schedule properties, he demanded partition on 20th May, 2005 again on 11th June, 2006 & lastly on 25th June, 2006. But the Defendant did not agree to the proposal of the Plaintiff. Hence, the suit. 3. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement & admitted that the suit property is the joint family property & as there were differences between family members, amicable arrangement was made. But due to individual difficulty, the suit has been filed for partition & he has no objection, if the properties are partitioned by metes & bonds according to the entitlement of the parties. Defendant No. 3 filed his written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable, as all the joint family properties have not been brought for partition & all the joint family members have not been made parties to the suit. The joint family properties under consolidation khata No. 521, 472, 523 & 471 of mouza Karamanga, P.S. Balikuda, Jagatsinghpur have been omitted in the suit. The joint family has dwelling house & ponds & an area of Ac. The joint family properties under consolidation khata No. 521, 472, 523 & 471 of mouza Karamanga, P.S. Balikuda, Jagatsinghpur have been omitted in the suit. The joint family has dwelling house & ponds & an area of Ac. 1.14 decimals under consolidation khata No. 523 of mouza Karamanga & other homestead property of the joint family are available under the consolidation khata No. 521 & the Plaintiff deliberately omitted those properties to take undue advantage. The joint family properties have been jointly recorded in the name of Defendant No. 1 & the name of Narendranth Mohanty & Dhirendranath Mohanty. However, they were not impleaded as parties to the suit. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties & the parties are not entitled to get equal share & the share of each member should be adjusted according to their valuation. Defendant No. 6 filed his written statement taking a stand that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties & barred by law of limitation & for suppression of material facts. Defendant No. 6 is the third son of Defendant No. 1 & he has filed a written statement separately stating therein that some of the joint family properties have been disposed of by the family members & those properties are required to be adjusted towards their respective shares, who have sold it & as the part of the suit land was khasmahal land, the Government is a necessary party & the pond, which was under consolidation khata No. 523 is not partible & after closure of the consolidation operation, further fragmentation of a chaka is not permissible & as such final decree is not possible, in that event the share of the coparceners cannot be determined by metes & bound & Schedule-A properties have not been declared stitiban status & as such it cannot change the character of stitiban right ipso-facto. A declaration in this regard is necessary to be obtained from the Tahasildar with approval of the Collector. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Defendant Nos. 7 to 12 filed their written statements stating that the Plaintiff & other Defendants have no cause of action for being impleaded as parties to the suit. Therefore, partition of the property was effected between the father of Defendant No. 1 & the predecessor in interest of Defendant Nos. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Defendant Nos. 7 to 12 filed their written statements stating that the Plaintiff & other Defendants have no cause of action for being impleaded as parties to the suit. Therefore, partition of the property was effected between the father of Defendant No. 1 & the predecessor in interest of Defendant Nos. 7 to 12 by registered sale deed in the year 1934 & they have been enjoying half share of B-Schedule & C-Schedule properties. Defendant No. 2 was set ex parte. They have also stated that the Plaintiff is entitled to get his share over the property of Defendant No. 1. The bebandabost properties have been settled by virtue of D.E.A. Case Nos. 40/94 & 41/94. On these pleadings the Court below framed as many as 8 issues which are as follows : 1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Has the Plaintiff cause of action to file the suit? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. Whether the suit properties under Khata No. 1498 Plot No. 2254 having the status of Khasmahal property is the ancestral property or self acquired property of D. 1 ? 5. Whether the Bebandabasta B-Schedule property acquired the status of stitiban ? 6. Whether Plaintiff & D. 1 to 6 are entitled to 10th share in Schedule-A & Schedule-B property & 117th share out of half share of Schedule-C property? 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? 8. To what reliefs the Plaintiff is entitled? 4. The Plaintiff & the contesting Defendants adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence. The Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. Defendant No. 3 & Defendant No. 6 were examined as D.Ws 1 & 2 respectively. Plaintiff filed certified copy of Record of Rights of the suit properties, which are marked as Exts. 1 to 6. The Defendants filed documents i.e. order of Mutation Case No. 3 of 2000. Hal RO.R khata No. 1306, Consolidation RO.R Khata No. 223, Tax receipt of holding No. 122 series of Tax receipt of holding No. 121/A & series of electricity bills, marked as Ext. A to G. On analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties & their pleadings, the Court below gave a finding that admittedly there was a partition between the Defendant No. 1 & Narendranath & Dhirendranath Mohanty Previously. A to G. On analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties & their pleadings, the Court below gave a finding that admittedly there was a partition between the Defendant No. 1 & Narendranath & Dhirendranath Mohanty Previously. Defendant No. 1 admitted in his written statement that all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. However, Ext. 2 reveals that the suit property was exclusively, recorded in the name of Surendranath Mohanty (Defendant No. 1). From Ext. 1 it can not be ascertained on which date the lease was granted in favour of the pattadar, but the period of lease was up to 31st March, 2003 & the said property was not the self acquired property of Defendant No. 1 Ext. 2 is the lease hold property, which was inherited by Defendant No. 1 from his ancestors. However, Ext. 1 is not a clear document to show that as to in whose favour the lease hold patta was granted in the year 1902. Hence, the said schedule 'A' property under Ext. 1 cannot be partitioned. There was prior partition between Defendant No. 1 & Defendant Nos. 7 to 12 & they are the proforma Defendants & the Plaintiff has 1/7th share over the property under Ext. 2 vide khata No. 1306, Plot No. 2254/2862, 2262 & 2257 in respect of Lot No. 1 of 'B' schedule land under khata No. 521 of mouza Karamanga, Jagatsinghpur & all the properties are ancestral property & khata Nos. 521 & 523 were bebandabasta. But the same has been settled. Defendant Nos. 7 to 12 have filed O.E.A. case to settle the land in their favour. The status of bebandabasta converted to stitiban & the co-sharers were separated by residence & mess. On these findings the Learned Court below has decreed the suit as stated above. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Ext. 1 is 'A' schedule property consisting of three plots i.e. khata No. 1498, plot No. 2254, area Ac. 0.100 decimals khata No. 1306, plot No. 2257, area Ac. 0.011 decimals, plot No. 2254/2862, area Act. 0.015 decimals, plot No. 2262, area Ac. 0.012 decimals total area Ac. 0.138 decimals in Cuttack district. S.R Off. & Tahasil-Cuttack Sadar, P.S.-Purighat, P.S. No. 3 Mouza-Cuttack Town, Unit No. 15, Choudhury Bazar. The Court below has held that Plot No. 2254 under khata No. 1498 is an area of Ac. 0.011 decimals, plot No. 2254/2862, area Act. 0.015 decimals, plot No. 2262, area Ac. 0.012 decimals total area Ac. 0.138 decimals in Cuttack district. S.R Off. & Tahasil-Cuttack Sadar, P.S.-Purighat, P.S. No. 3 Mouza-Cuttack Town, Unit No. 15, Choudhury Bazar. The Court below has held that Plot No. 2254 under khata No. 1498 is an area of Ac. 0.100 decimals is not partible, as the property is khasmahal lease hold property & even if the period of lease has been expired, the lease has not been renewed & therefore the same is not sustainable is view of the decisions rendered in cases of Abhimanyu Sahu v. Narayan Chandra Sahu & ors, 2000(1) OLR 85 , Sourindra Narayan Bhanj Deo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa & ors, 98 (2004) CLT 397 & in the case of Sunil Kumar Dass v. Revenue Divisional commissioner, Vol. 105, CLT (2008) 821. 6. The Respondent No. 1 is the Plaintiff, who himself argued the matter & submitted that he is an advocate in profession & he is facing immense difficulties as the property was not partitioned between the parties to enjoy the same for his residence & chambers. Vacant space are also available & he may be permitted to construct the house over the said area for his residence & office by making some further construction etc. which are badly necessary. 7. Defendant No. 6, however submitted that there is no necessity for partition. The property may be stood as such & although the Appellant as well as the Respondents has raised their objection in respect of Respondent No. 13, who does not belong to the family, she has been impleaded as Respondent No. 13 by Order Dated 29.3.2012. It appears that the intervener claimed that she should be impleaded as party to the appeal as she has subsisting interest in the property in question & her interest being affected by the Judgment & decree of the Court below she was impleaded as such, though was not a party to the suit originally. 8. Considering the rival submission of the parties, the question is to be determined in this appeal as to whether Ac.0.100 decimals as shown in Schedule-A property being Khasmahal property is liable to be partitioned or not & whether Respondent 13 is a necessary party to the appeal? The second question is taken up first for consideration. 8. Considering the rival submission of the parties, the question is to be determined in this appeal as to whether Ac.0.100 decimals as shown in Schedule-A property being Khasmahal property is liable to be partitioned or not & whether Respondent 13 is a necessary party to the appeal? The second question is taken up first for consideration. Admittedly, Respondent No. 13 is not a party to the suit & she has also not filed any appeal against the Judgment & decree passed by the Court below. If she is aggrieved by the said Judgment & decree in any manner, she is at liberty to prefer a separate appeal & her claim cannot be decided in this appeal. Accordingly she has been deleted as Respondent No. 13. Admittedly, Schedule-A property under plot No. 2254, khata No. 1498 area Ac. 0.100 decimals is khasmahal property, which was leased out to the predecessor in interest of Defendant No. 1 & he is continuing in possession of the same till date. In view of the decision rendered in the cases Abhimanyu Sahu, Sourindra Narayan Bhanj Deo & Sunil Kumar Dass (Supra) where their Lordships have held that Khasmahal lease-hold property is partible & transferable & right of renewal is inherent with the lessee. 9. In view of the above position of law, this Court confirms the findings of the Trial Court except issue No. 4 i.e. properties under khata No. 1498, plot No. 2254 having the status of khasmahal property. The finding of Trial Court in respect of issue No. 4 is set aside & the said property appertaining to plot No. 2254, khata No. 1498 area Ac. 0.100 decimals is also liable to be partitioned. The parties are entitled to 1/7th share. With the above observation & direction the appeal is allowed. No cost.