JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiff/appellant has presented this appeal questioning the validity of the judgment passed in O.S.No.89/2012 dated 28.01.2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti. 2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking in the original suit as plaintiff and defendants respectively. 3. The plaintiff has sought for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendants No. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.4 on 20.01.2014 in respect of survey No.380 and partition deed dated 17.12.1965 and compromise decree of O.S.No.10/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti dated 07.04.2010, are not binding upon the plaintiff’s share and for awarding legitimate 1/4th share in all the schedule properties in the suit by effecting partition and separate possession and handover the same by reopening the earlier partition dated 17.12.1965. 4. The appellant’s counsel submitted that, the propositus of the plaintiff and defendants were one Shri Dhareppa and his wife Smt. Ningawwa, who are stated to have died long back at Itnal village. Plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 are the members of the joint family governed by Mitakshara School of Law. Suit properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3. Defendants No.1 to 3 were stated to have purchased the landed properties in their respective names from the income of the joint family. There is no partition among the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 till filing of suit. However, they are residing independently. The propositus had two sons, namely, Shri Dhulappa and Shri Mallappa. Plaintiff’s father Shri Mallappa, who is the husband of defendant No.1, had died on 24.05.1965, leaving behind him the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as class-I heirs. On the other hand, Dhulappa and his wife Borawwa, the father and mother of defendant No.2, were stated to have died before filing the suit, while leaving behind their sons defendants No.2 and 3 as class-I heirs. The plaintiff was given in marriage to one Basappa Channabasannavar, living in the same village. 5. In terms of the pleadings in the suit, the Court below framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3? 2. The plaintiff was given in marriage to one Basappa Channabasannavar, living in the same village. 5. In terms of the pleadings in the suit, the Court below framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is having 1/4th joint share in the suit properties with defendants No.1 to 3? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she was/is in joint possession? 4. Whether the defendants No.2 and 3 proves, the permission was obtained from the competent Court of law in concern to the plaintiff for partition when she was minor? 5. Whether defendant No.2 and 3 proves that, the partition deed dated 17.12.1965 is in respect of suit properties was valid and lawful one? 6. Whether defendant No.2 and 3 proves that, the partition deed dated 17.12.1965 is in respect of suit properties was valid and lawful one? 7. Whether defendant prove that suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation? 8. What order or decree? The Court below proceeded to decide issue No.7 relating to: “7. Whether defendant prove that suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation?” In respect of other issues are concerned, judgment dated 28.01.2015 is silent. In other words, other issues have not been dealt with by the Court below. Thus, the Court below dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the sole issue No.7 and further ordered for drawing up of decree. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.89/2012, the plaintiff presented this appeal. 6. The appellant/plaintiff vehemently contended that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is contrary to Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further contended that the Court below failed to frame issue No.7 as a preliminary issue, whereas the Court below permitted to lead the evidence of the plaintiff and defendants and so also marked the documents. In such an event, the Court below should have answered all the issues framed by it and in not answering all the issues resulted in illegality and arbitrariness. It was further contended that the plaintiff is a coparcener and in the absence of consent or participation in the proceedings for compromise or for agreement or alienation etc. In such an event, the Court below should have answered all the issues framed by it and in not answering all the issues resulted in illegality and arbitrariness. It was further contended that the plaintiff is a coparcener and in the absence of consent or participation in the proceedings for compromise or for agreement or alienation etc. The partition deed dated 17.12.1965 at Ex.D17 is not binding on the plaintiff. As is evident from the school certificate, plaintiff was a minor when such partition took place. It was not for her benefit or welfare. Thus, the Court below failed to deal with the aforesaid issue. It was also contended that the cause of action is recurring until partition by metes and bonds takes place. In a suit for partition in respect of joint family properties, the party need not seek for a declaration either for cancellation or for void or illegal and it is sufficient that the same is not binding on their share. This aspect has not been appreciated by the Court below. Defendants No.1 and others should have obtained permission from the competent authority for entering into the partition deed dated 17.12.1965 at Ex.D17 on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus, Ex.D17 – partition deed is not binding on the share of the plaintiff. The observation of the Court below that the plaintiff should have questioned the validity of Ex.D17 after attaining her age of majority is out of question, since the plaintiff was not a party to the said partition deed. The finding recorded by the Court below on issue No.7 is without any substance when the plaintiff is not a party to Ex.D17 – partition deed and she was minor as on the date of partition. Plaintiff’s mother was mislead on the date of execution of partition deed by the defendant No.1, his father – Dhulappa. It was also contended that defendants No.2 and 3 were stated to have alienated some of the joint family properties in favour of defendant No.4 behind the back of the plaintiff. Such alienation is also not binding on the plaintiff. So also the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.10/2010 filed among the defendants No.2 and 3 is also not binding. 7. The learned counsel for the defendants Sri. Such alienation is also not binding on the plaintiff. So also the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.10/2010 filed among the defendants No.2 and 3 is also not binding. 7. The learned counsel for the defendants Sri. Santosh B. Malagoudar, supported the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.89/2012 dated 28.01.2015 and vehemently contended that undisputedly the suit is barred by limitation, having regard to the fact that partition deed at Ex.D17 is dated 17.12.1965. Defendant No.1 was party to the partition deed. Necessary permission has been obtained from the Revenue Authorities so as to cover up the issue relating to plaintiff being a minor. Thus, the plaintiff has not made out a case so as to interfere with the judgment dated 28.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.89/2012. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The Court below framed eight issues, whereas issue No.7 is relating to limitation. The Court below recorded evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and DWs. 1 and 2 and further marked Exs.P1 to P22 and Exs. D1 to D28. The trial Court heard the parties and while disposing off the suit answered issue No.7 in the affirmative and held that answering other issues would not arise in view of the finding on issue No.2 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.89/2012. 10. Order 14 Rule (2) of CPC reads as under: ORDER XIV – SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND DETERMINATION OF SUIT ON ISSUES OF LAW OR ON ISSUES AGREED UPON: 1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues .— (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to.— (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. 11. 11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the trial Court has erred in not deciding issues No.1 to 6. Once the aforesaid issues were framed, consequently, on examination and cross-examination of both the plaintiff and defendants and marking of documents on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to have decided issues No.1 to 6. 12. The above provision is specific and crystal clear that the Court has to decide each and every issue which was framed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Praveen D. Desai (dead) through legal representatives and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 412 , held at para 36 and 39 as under: “36. Order 14 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, confers power upon the court to pronounce judgment on all the issues. But there is an exception to that general rule i.e., where issues both of law and fact arise in the same suit and the court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issue of law, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by any law. 39. The moot question, therefore, that falls for consideration is as to whether courts shall be guided by the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 9-A of the Code as amended by the Maharashtra Amendment Act, in the matter of deciding the objection with regard to jurisdiction of the court which concerns the bar of limitation as a preliminary issue.” 13. Having regard to the requirement of law as stated above and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Court below has erred in not deciding issue Nos.1 to 6 and restricted in deciding issue No.7. 14. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of and the case is remanded. The judgment dated 28.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.89/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, is hereby set aside and O.S.No.89/2012 stands restored. The Court below is hereby directed to continue to proceed with O.S.No.89/2012 from the stage of hearing the suit and conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The judgment dated 28.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.89/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, is hereby set aside and O.S.No.89/2012 stands restored. The Court below is hereby directed to continue to proceed with O.S.No.89/2012 from the stage of hearing the suit and conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Parties are hereby directed to cooperate in deciding O.S.No.89/2012. The parties and their counsel shall appear before the trial Court on 17.02.2020.