Judgment R. DASH, J. The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the fora below has preferred this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2009 and 24.10.2009, respectively, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No.106 of 2008 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2008 and 30.8.2008, respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in C.S. (I) No.9/2007 dismissing the Suit. 2. The appellant as plaintiff filed the Suit seeking partition of plaint Schedule ‘A’ property with further prayer for permanent injunction. Plaintiff’s case, in nutshell, is that plaintiff and D.1 to D.3 are the successors-in-interest of late Subudhi Panda who had three sons, namely, Dharamu, Bhikari and Natabar. While they were in jointness, Natabar died issueless. Plaintiff is the only son of Bhikari. D.1 to D.3 are the three sons of Dharamu. Out of the rest of the defendants, D.7 is the wife of D.2. D.4, 5, 6 and 8 to 11 are strangers to the family against whom no relief is claimed but since their names appear in the R.O.Rs., they have been arrayed in the suit. However, the plots recorded in their names have been excluded from the plaint Schedule as neither the Plaintiff nor the defendants claim any interest therein. It is further pleaded that as yet there is no partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds, but plaintiff and D.1 to 3 are in separate possession of different plots as per their convenience. In respect of the homestead plots, their respective possession has been correctly reflected in the R.O.R. but in respect of some of the agricultural lands, note of possession has not been made correctly. For example, it is pleaded, Suit Plot No.832 under Khata No.155 though owned by the plaintiff as well as D.1 to D.3, the latters are wrongly shown to be in possession thereof and taking advantage thereof they have arranged persons to dispose of the land pertaining to that plot. 3. D.1 to 3, who are respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this appeal are the contesting defendants. Others have been set ex-parte. In their written statement, contesting defendants have challenged plaintiff’s claim contending that the suit properties are not the entire of the properties of the joint family and that with an ulterior motive the plaintiff has excluded some of the joint family properties. Others have been set ex-parte. In their written statement, contesting defendants have challenged plaintiff’s claim contending that the suit properties are not the entire of the properties of the joint family and that with an ulterior motive the plaintiff has excluded some of the joint family properties. That apart some of the coparceners/co-sharers have also been left out. It is further pleaded that there has already been a partition of their joint family properties and for that the present suit is not maintainable. In respect of Plot No.832, it is their specific plea that on 10.5.1992 in presence of village gentries there was a ‘panch faisalanama’ evidencing that the plaintiff’s share in that Plot has been relinquished in favour of D.1. 4. Taking note of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge framed seven issues and after recording evidence adduced by the parties and analyzing the same, learned trial court dismissed the suit accepting the defence plea that the entire of the joint family property was not brought to the hotchpot and that all the persons interested in the suit properties were not impleaded as parties to the suit. Learned lower appellate court affirmed the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the First Appeal. 5. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the courts below are justified in saying that suit failed due to non-joinder of necessary and proper party due to non-impletion of daughter of Api Panda.” Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated his stand taken before the First Appellate Court that the conclusion of the learned trial court on the point of non-joinder of necessary parties and non-inclusion of all the properties are not sustainable in law, inasmuch as the properties that have linkage with the parties to the suit have been brought to the hotchpot and a suit for partition of such properties amongst the parties to the suit is maintainable. 6. The plaintiff has admitted that he has not included in the plaint Schedule some other plots wherein he has got share. It also appears that the plaintiff has sold some landed properties which were part of his ancestral properties but those have not been brought to the hotchpot. 6. The plaintiff has admitted that he has not included in the plaint Schedule some other plots wherein he has got share. It also appears that the plaintiff has sold some landed properties which were part of his ancestral properties but those have not been brought to the hotchpot. Though the contesting defendants claim that there has already been an amicable partition it is not pleaded by any of the parties that the joint family ancestral properties left behind by the common ancestor Bandhu Panda have been partitioned amongst his four branches. 7. Confronted with the aforestated factual situation, the learned lower appellate court has made the following observations:- “This being the position as presented by the plaintiff in his pleading and also in his evidence in court, the persons who have purchased it and the persons who have sold it are necessary parties and in absence of them, the suit for partition can not be properly adjudicated. Even if for the sake of argument it is concluded that the successors of the common ancestor of Subudhi have not challenged any partition in between them and there is every reason to divide the properties owned by late Subudhi, then the plaintiff must come up with a clear cut case that Subudhi got the suit schedule properties by virtue of the division effected in between his brothers. There is no dispute that Bandhu died leaving behind Nidhi, Gadei, Sadei and Subudhi Panda. So there must be positive evidence that Subudhi got the suit schedule properties by virtue of a partition effected in between him and his brothers and after such division, the successors of late Subudhi are entitled to divide it in between them. There is no whisper of word in the pleading or in the evidence of the plaintiff that Subudhi got the suit schedule properties by virtue of any partition or any document showing division of property in between them.” 8. In my considered view, the above-quoted observations made by the learned lower appellate court are justified. The defendants in their W.S. have given a genealogy which starts from the common ancestor Bandhu Panda. But the plaintiffs in their plaint have given the genealogy which starts from late Subudhi Panda who is one of the four sons of Bandhu Panda. In my considered view, the above-quoted observations made by the learned lower appellate court are justified. The defendants in their W.S. have given a genealogy which starts from the common ancestor Bandhu Panda. But the plaintiffs in their plaint have given the genealogy which starts from late Subudhi Panda who is one of the four sons of Bandhu Panda. According to the plaintiffs the suit for partition is confined to the successors of Subudhi and therefore, the successors of the other three sons of Bandhu Panda are not necessary parties. This assertion seems to have got considerable force. Learned lower Appellate Court has observed that the successors of the common ancestor Bandhu Panda have been in separate possession of their ancestral properties as per their convenience and they have effected several inter-se transactions involving the ancestral properties besides, some of the co-sharers transferring their ancestral properties in favour of outsiders. This being be position there emerges a strong presumption that the ancestral properties have already been divided amongst the four branches of Bandhu Panda. The contesting defendants, on the other hand, do not assert that their ancestral properties left behind by late Bandhu Panda are yet to be partitioned. Rather, absence of such a defence strengthens the theory that there was prior partition of those properties amongst the four branches of Bandhu Panda. In para-7 of their W.S. they have taken the stand that there is a prior partition amongst the sons of Subudhi Panda as per an amicable settlement according to their convenience. In para-4 of their W.S. they have further claimed that partition of the suit property was effected prior to 1952. But they are silent about partition of the ancestral properties amongst the four branches of Bandhu. Thus it is found to be nobody’s case that there has been no partition of the ancestral properties amongst the four branches of late Bandhu Panda. Therefore, learned lower Appellate Court ought not to have taken exception to the absence of pleadings in the plaint that there has already been a partition amongst four branches of Bandhu Panda. 9. In this suit plaintiff demands partition of the suit properties amongst the successors of Subudhi. Therefore, learned lower Appellate Court ought not to have taken exception to the absence of pleadings in the plaint that there has already been a partition amongst four branches of Bandhu Panda. 9. In this suit plaintiff demands partition of the suit properties amongst the successors of Subudhi. Though it is not specifically pleaded by the contesting defendants, it is in the evidence of the plaintiff that he has got little interest in some other lands which are not included in the plaint schedule and that he had to sell some landed properties to outsiders when his co-sharers refused to purchase the same. Admittedly, these properties and the transferees thereto have not been included in the suit. It might also be a fact that the defendants have alienated some portions of their joint family properties to outsider. Be that as it may, the plaintiff while instituting a suit for partition of joint family property confining his claim to the properties belonging to the branch headed by Subudhi, the plaintiff ought to have brought all the ancestral properties that fell to the share of Subudhi as well as properties, if any, acquired by the joint family of Subudhi and thrown to the joint family hot-pot. Furthermore, the plaintiff ought to have impleaded all those persons and/or their legal heirs in whose favour any portion of the joint family property has been alienated. The plaintiff having not done so the learned Courts below have rightly held that in the absence of some of the necessary parties and for the non-inclusion of all the joint family properties, the suit for partition is not maintainable. 10. In the substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, there is a reference to one Api Panda. Her name is found to be jointly recorded with the names of the plaintiff and the contesting defendants in respect of one suit plot, i.e. Plot No.872 under Khata No.159 of Mouza-Arilo (Ext.1/d). A son of late Api Panda is impleaded as defendant No.4. It is admitted by the plaintiff in his deposition that Api Panda has got another son and one daughter who have not been impleaded as parties to the suit. Therefore, the learned trial Court has observed that in the absence of all the legal heirs of Api Panda the suit for partition is not maintainable. It is admitted by the plaintiff in his deposition that Api Panda has got another son and one daughter who have not been impleaded as parties to the suit. Therefore, the learned trial Court has observed that in the absence of all the legal heirs of Api Panda the suit for partition is not maintainable. It is also rightly observed by the learned trial Court that the plaint does not make the picture clear as to whether all the persons whose names are jointly recorded in the ROR marked Ext.1 to Ext.1/d or their successors-in-interest have been impleaded as parties to the suit. It is found from the R.O.R. (Ext.1series) that some persons whose names find jointly recorded along with names of the plaintiff and the contesting defendants do not find place in the cause title of the plaint. So far the legal heirs of successor of Api Panda is concerned, the plaintiff is silent as to why some of them have been left out. Though one of them is impleaded as defendant No.4, he did not contest the suit. Under such circumstances, the learned court below are justified holding that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Not only the daughter of Api Panda but also the other son who has been left out and the persons whose names stand recorded in the R.O.R. (Ext.1 series) jointly with the names of the plaintiff and the contesting defendants or their successors-in-interest are also found to be some of the necessary parties. Neither the plaint nor the written statement has been drafted properly to draw a clear picture showing that all the joint family properties belonging to the family of Subudhi and all the persons having interest therein have been either included in or excluded from the purview of the suit. 11. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree are confirmed and the Second Appeal stands dismissed but in the facts and circumstances without cost.