Judgment: This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.08.1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/96 by the District Judge, Chhindwara whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.02.1996 passed in C.S. No. 18-A/95 by the Civil Judge Class-I, Amarwada District Chhindwara has been affirmed and confirmed. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of 7.95 acres of land comprised in Khasra nos. 59,60 and 251 of village Pipariyagumani, Tahsil Amarwada District Chhindwara which it was alleged, had been purchased by them through a registered sale deed dated 11.07.1962 from the original owner Hariram. 3. The suit was filed alleging that khasra nos. 59,60 and 251 belong jointly to Hariram, Shyama Bai and Battu Bai and that Hariram by a registered sale deed dated 11.07.1962 Ex. P/1 had sold his share of the land to the plaintiffs/appellants but the respondents were interfering in their possession and in such circumstances, a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction be issued. 4. Both the courts below have recorded a finding to the effect that though the appellant/plaintiff has undisputedly purchased some portion of the land from Hariram by sale deed dated 11.07.1962 Ex. P/1, however, as the property in question is joint property and Hariram, Battu Bai and Shyama Bai were the co-owners of the same, therefore, the appropriate remedy of the plaintiffs/appellants is to file a suit for partition. With the aforesaid observations, both the courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellants. 5. This court has admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether the lower appellate court was right in dismissing the suit of the appellants on the ground that they were bound to file a suit for partition, even though they purchased 7.95 acres of land which would be just equal to the share of Hariram by registered saledeed dated 11th of July, 1962, Ex P/1 ? (2) Whether in view of the fact that the suit for partition is barred under section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the court below should have declared the shares of the appellants directing them to file an application for partition before the Revenue Court ? (2) Whether in view of the fact that the suit for partition is barred under section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the court below should have declared the shares of the appellants directing them to file an application for partition before the Revenue Court ? (3) Whether in view of the admitted fact that D.W.1, Shyamabai had sold six acres of agricultural land to Badgu, the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that there was no previous partition, is perverse ?” 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that as right and title of the appellant has been declared by the courts below on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.07.1962 Ex. P/1, therefore, the courts below while recording such finding should have directed the Revenue authorities to undertake proceedings for partition by metes and bounds as provided under section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code instead of dismissing the suit. It is submitted that this oversight on the part of the courts below gives rise to the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length. 8. From a perusal of paragraph 12 of the judgment of the trial court dated 05.02.1996 and paragraph 14 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 12.08.1997, it is clear that the courts below have recorded a finding to the effect that the plaintiffs/appellants have acquired the right to part of the land of Hariram purchased by them by a sale deed dated 11.07.1962 Ex. P/1. It is however, not clear from the record as to the actual extent of the share of Hariram in the total land nor is it clear from a perusal of the record as to what was the actual extent of the right and the share of the respondent Shyamabai in the entire joint property. It is also apparent and clear from a perusal of the record that two out of the three co-owners namely; Battu Bai and Hariram the vendor, from whom the appellant/plaintiff purchased the land, were also not made party to the proceedings therefore, the actual extent of share of all the three co-owners namely; Hariram, Battu and Shyamabai has neither been determined nor declared by the courts below. It has also not been pleaded or established that the appellants have purchased the entire share of Hariram. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that as the extent of share of the co-owners was not determined or declared by the courts below nor were the co-owners party in the proceedings, therefore, in such circumstances, the courts below have not committed any illegality or perversity in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs nor has any illegality been committed in stating that the appropriate remedy of the plaintiffs/appellants is to file a suit for partition. 10. In the circumstances, the substantial questions of law framed by this court are answered against the plaintiffs/appellants. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.