JUDGMENT : Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. Heard the respective counsel. 2. The appellants herein impugns the judgment and decree dated 21st March 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1990 challenging the judgment and decree dated 19th January 1990 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Sinnar in Regular Civil Suit No. 191 of 1982. 3. The substantial questions of law on the basis of which the second appeal is admitted on issue/ground no. 8 which reads as follows:- "It should have been noted that in view of the provisions of Section 14-(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, Parvatibai and consequently Shevantabai was entitled to her share, and whatever interest she had in the joint family property became absolute on the passing of the Hindu Succession Act. The suit should have been decreed in view of this legal position". 4. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the properties of one Shri Gajiram Bhise. Parvatibai who happened to be his second wife expired in the year 1977-1978. The plaintiff and Defendant No. 10 happen to be the daughters of Parvatibai. However, it is admitted position that the plaintiff is the daughter of Gajiram Bhise who is begotten not from Parvatibai but from a pre-deceased wife. 5. The plaintiff had also admitted in her evidence that she is not the natural daughter of Parvatibai but of pre-deceased wife of Gajiram Bhise. However, she was claiming partition through Parvatibai. That, in view of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as "The facts admitted need not be proved". 6. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows:- "15. ......General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.- The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16" 7. 6. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows:- "15. ......General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.- The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16" 7. The contentions and pleadings of the plaintiff would be dealt by section 15 (1) (a) read with section 15 (2) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which reads as follows:- 15 (1) (a) ....firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;" 15 (2) (b) ....any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. 8. It is also to be noted that the sons of Gajiram Bhise begotten from Parvatibai are defendant nos. 1 to 3. However one of the son of Gajiram has not been arraigned as a defendant in the original suit and the suit would be hit by the provision of non-joinder of necessary parties. There are concurrent findings of both the courts as far as non-joinder of necessary parties and both the courts have held that plaintiff had shown only three sons but in cross-examination the plaintiff admitted that one Dada Patil was also uncle of the plaintiff. She had admitted she had not arraigned either Dada Patil or his son Mahadu or his daughter as defendant and hence the suit was liable to be dismissed by virtue of non-joinder of necessary parties. 9. In view of this second appeal being sans merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly disposed of.