JUDGMENT : The plaintiff has preferred this regular first appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3. The plaintiff - Smt. Lakshmamma and defendant - Manju are the children of Rangegowda. Originally, the suit was filed only in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 8/P2 measuring 3 acres situated at Kalalavadi Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The said land was granted to Rangegowda by the Government by its order dated 22-8-1973. The case of the plaintiff is, from the date of grant, Late Rangegowda along with the plaintiff and defendant was in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After the demise of Rangegowda, the defendant was managing the suit schedule property. The defendant taking advantage of the illiteracy and ignorance of the plaintiff, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff changed the revenue documents such as RTC and other documents into his name. He was making all arrangements to sell away the suit schedule property. Thy plaintiff approached him and requested for her legitimate share. She was not given. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and possession. Subsequently, by way of an amendment application, she included a house property bearing No.2391, CH-4, 7th Cross, K.G. Koppal, Mysore, as the second item and she sought for half share in the said property also. 4. The defendant filed a detailed written statement. He denied the plaint allegations but he did not dispute the relationship between the parties. It is his case, after marriage, plaintiff is residing with her husband since 30 years. She has become a member of the husband family and ceased to be a member of the defendant's family. The defendant and his father were jointly cultivating the suit schedule property and after the death of his father, he continues to cultivate the same. Their father died 32 years back. After his death, katha of the property has been made out in his name. The plaintiff did not put forth her claim. Now, the market value of the property has gone up considerably. The present suit is filed for partition. It lacks bona fides. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. After his death, katha of the property has been made out in his name. The plaintiff did not put forth her claim. Now, the market value of the property has gone up considerably. The present suit is filed for partition. It lacks bona fides. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. The plaintiff is not entitled to any share. 5. After the amendment of the plaint, he also filed an additional written statement. He contended that the suit is barred by limitation. He also contended that, as their mother is not made a party to the proceedings, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 6. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule item No. 2 is a joint family property and she is in joint possession thereof?. 2. Whether the defendant proves that this suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?. 3. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation?. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties as prayed?. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed?. 6. What order or decree?. 7. The plaintiff in order to substantiate her claim examined herself as PW.1 and produced 2 documents which are marked as Exs. P1 and P2. On behalf of the defendant, he was examined as DW1 and no documents were produced. 8. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record held that, in so far as item No.2 of the suit schedule property is concerned, though it was included by way of amendment, the plaintiff has not stated the nature of the said property and, therefore, when the plaintiff has failed to prove that it is a joint family property, she is not entitled to any share therein. It held that, as the property belonged her father, he died leaving behind his widow, a son and a daughter. Therefore, the widow was a necessary party to the suit for partition. As she is not made a party, the suit was held to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and consequently the suit came to be dismissed. Of course, it held that the suit is not barred by law of limitation. 9. Therefore, the widow was a necessary party to the suit for partition. As she is not made a party, the suit was held to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and consequently the suit came to be dismissed. Of course, it held that the suit is not barred by law of limitation. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and decree contended that, the plaintiff did not make her mother a party to the suit, her mother filed an application on 19-11-2008 under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of Civil Procedure Code for impleading herself as a party to the suit. The Court below did not pass any order. Having not allowed the said application for impleadment, the trial Court could not have dismissed the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties. In so far as item No.2 of the suit property is concerned, it was included by way of amendment. The averments in the plaint show she is claiming a share in the suit property on the death of her father. Whether it was a joint family property or it was a self acquired property, she was entitled to a share. Therefore, the trial Court was in total error in refusing to grant a share to her in the said property. 11. From the aforesaid material and the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal is as under:- (i) Whether the trial Court was justified in declining to grant any share to the plaintiff in item No.2 of the schedule property?. (ii) Whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., the mother?. 12. Point No. (i).- Item No.2 is the house property which was not included on the day the plaint was filed. However, by amendment the property was included. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is clearly stated that it is a joint family property, it was not included earlier and, therefore, permission was sought to include the said property. Amendment was allowed. But, the contents of the affidavit are not reflected in the plaint. However, by amendment the property was included. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is clearly stated that it is a joint family property, it was not included earlier and, therefore, permission was sought to include the said property. Amendment was allowed. But, the contents of the affidavit are not reflected in the plaint. However, if we look into the averments in the plaint, it is clear she is claiming right to the property as a daughter of her father Rangegowda. The fact that the said property stood in the name of Rangegowda is not in dispute because in the additional written statement filed by the defendant he is not disputing the said fact. Therefore, whether the said property was a joint family property or a self acquired property of her father, she was entitled to a share in the said property. On the ground that in the plaint the nature of the property is not mentioned or on the ground that she not spoken about the nature of the property in her evidence, the Court could not have declined to grant a share in the said property. Therefore, the said finding requires to be set aside. 13. Point No. (ii):- It is true that, in a suit for partition all the sharers are to be made parties. In the absence of sharers who are necessary parties to a suit for partition, no effective decree for partition could be passed. In the instant case, apart from the plaintiff and the defendant, their mother is a sharer. She is entitled to l/3rd share in respect of the property. The mother filed an application to implead herself. Application was pending consideration. The Court below without considering the application could not have dismissed the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court on that aspect also cannot be sustained. Hence, we pass the following order:- (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree of the trial Court is hereby set aside. (iii) The entire matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration after impleading the mother who has filed an application to implead herself and after giving an opportunity to file the written statement, adduce evidence and pass appropriate orders. (ii) The judgment and decree of the trial Court is hereby set aside. (iii) The entire matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration after impleading the mother who has filed an application to implead herself and after giving an opportunity to file the written statement, adduce evidence and pass appropriate orders. (iv) It is open to the plaintiff to carry out the amendment and also raise a plea regarding the nature of the property which is now conspicuously missing in the application.