JUDGMENT : T.G.Shivashankare Gowda, J. In R.F.A.No.1410/2017, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.57/2011 on the file of the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru (for short 'the Trial Court'), dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession. 2. In RFA.Cr.Ob.No.3/2020, the defendants have challenged the impugned judgment seeking setting aside of the finding recorded on re-casted issue No.1, issue Nos.2 to 4 and additional issues. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court. 4. Brief facts of the case are, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife; plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 and 4 are their children. Plaintiff has brought the instant suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the plaint 'B' schedule property (for short 'suit schedule property'). It is the case of the plaintiff that through registered Partition Deed dated 30.05.1979 between defendant No.1 and his brothers, suit schedule property was allotted to the share of defendant No.1. Plaintiff and defendants are in joint and constructive possession of the properties. The khata stands in the name of defendant No.1. On 05.03.2011, plaintiff demanded defendant No.1 to effect partition, but his request was not heeded. Defendant No.1 taking advantage of the khata standing in his name executed a Gift Deed dated 10.03.2011 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 gifting the suit schedule property in their favour. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit seeking his 1/4th share. 5. The defendants have admitted the relationship, acquisition of suit schedule property by defendant No.1 in the partition between himself and his brother on 30.05.1979 under a registered Partition Deed. According to them, item No.4 of the suit schedule property was acquired by defendant No.1 on 27.09.1989 from one D.L.Bhadregowda and his sons, which is his self-acquired property. Defendant No.1 was doing soap-nut and paddy business earning income, he has used the said income for acquisition of the said properties, so also he has constructed house and shop in item Nos.7 to 10 of the suit schedule property by spending Rs.10 lakhs. Defendant No.1 has performed the marriage of the plaintiff. After marriage, wife of plaintiff could not cope-up with the family members due to her lavish life. Defendant No.1 has performed the marriage of the plaintiff. After marriage, wife of plaintiff could not cope-up with the family members due to her lavish life. For this reason, defendant No.1 has purchased 1 acre 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.218/P1 at Doddamagaravalli village in the name of plaintiff and also acquired 10 acres of land in Sy.No.107 of Haliyuru village in the name of plaintiff and his cousin brother D.T.Goutham out of joint family funds. Defendant No.1 also consented for change of khata of joint family property bearing Sy.No.540 measuring 2 acres, Sy.No.250 measuring 7 guntas and Sy.No.310/2 measuring 20 guntas at Doddamagaravalli village, in the name of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 had also given more than 20 acres of land called as 'Mavinahaklu Estate' to the share of plaintiff. These are the properties which are not included in the suit. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of the properties. 6. Defendant No.1 had gifted item Nos.2 to 4 of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and retained 5 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.202/P1 for his share. Since plaintiff has already obtained his share of property from out of joint family funds, he has no right or share in the suit schedule property and sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Defendant No.3 while opposing the suit in her written statement, which is adopted by defendant No.4, contended that the share allotted to them by way of gift deed by her father was meager compared to the land allotted to the share of plaintiff measuring more than 20 acres. Hence, fresh partition has to be effected allotting equal share to the daughters subjecting all the joint family properties to the partition excluding self-acquired properties of defendant No.1. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that Sl.Nos. 4, 7 to 10 in 'B' schedule are the joint family properties of himself and the defendants? 2. Whether the defendants prove that Sl.Nos. 4, 7 to 10 in 'B' schedule are the self-acquired properties of 1st defendant? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff has already obtained his share in the joint family properties as contended in the written statement? 4. 2. Whether the defendants prove that Sl.Nos. 4, 7 to 10 in 'B' schedule are the self-acquired properties of 1st defendant? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff has already obtained his share in the joint family properties as contended in the written statement? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that gift deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 4 with respect to 'B' schedule properties is not binding on him? 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-inclusion of other joint family properties? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in 'B' schedule properties? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits and accounts as prayed? 8. What Order or Decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that Sl.No.11 to 15 in 'B' schedule are the joint family properties of himself and the defendants? 2. Whether the defendants prove that Sl.Nos.11 to 15 in 'B' schedule are the self-acquired properties of 1st defendant? RECASTED ISSUE: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit 'B' schedule properties are the joint right properties of plaintiff and defendants that are liable to be partitioned and on partition the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share and separate possession? 9. Before the Trial Court, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. Defendant No.1 examined himself and two witnesses as DWs-1 to 3 and marked as many as 32 documents as per Exs.D1 to D32. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court while recording its finding, answered issues Nos.4, 5, additional issue No.1 in the affirmative; issue Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 and additional issue No.2 in the negative, ultimately, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the suit is one for partial partition and same is not maintainable. 10. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has filed R.F.A.No.1410/2017 on various grounds and the defendants have also filed Cross Objections challenging the affirmative findings recorded by the Trial Court against them on various grounds. 11. Heard Sri. K.S. Ganesha, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Sri.N.Jayavelu, learned Counsel for defendants and Sri.B.S.Sachin, learned Counsel for defendant No.1. 12. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has filed R.F.A.No.1410/2017 on various grounds and the defendants have also filed Cross Objections challenging the affirmative findings recorded by the Trial Court against them on various grounds. 11. Heard Sri. K.S. Ganesha, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Sri.N.Jayavelu, learned Counsel for defendants and Sri.B.S.Sachin, learned Counsel for defendant No.1. 12. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are acquired by defendant No.1 in a partition between himself and his brothers through a registered partition deed dated 30.05.1979, thereby the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and the defendants and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share being a member of the joint family along with defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. Inspite of the plaintiff asking for the partition, on 05.03.2011 to avoid the partition, defendant No.1 executed a Gift Deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 on 10.03.2011. The Trial Court inspite of recording that item Nos.4, 7 to 10 of the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 is not binding on the plaintiff, erroneously dismissed the suit without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff to implead other properties said to have been the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. There is no evidence to show there was a family partition between the plaintiff and the defendants. When the joint family is continued to be in existence, the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit and he seeks for decreeing the suit granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff. 13. Opposing the finding recorded by the Trial Court holding that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and also the finding recorded against the defendants in the suit, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the defendants that after performance of marriage of the plaintiff because of non-cooperation of his wife, he was given share in the properties and he started living separately, inspite of it, the Trial Court committed an error in holding the existence of joint family and also joint family properties. The properties at Serial Nos.4, 7 to 15 of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1, who acquired the same out of his income from business. The properties at Serial Nos.4, 7 to 15 of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1, who acquired the same out of his income from business. Inspite of it, the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and committed an error in holding that they are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. 13.1. It is also contended that unless all the properties are brought into the suit, so also arraying D.T. Goutham as one of the defendants, the suit is bad in law and the Trial Court has rightly observed that the suit is one for partial partition, same is not maintainable and he supported the impugned judgment to that extent and seeks for allowing the cross-objection to reverse the finding recorded on recasted issue No.1 and issue Nos.2 to 4 and additional issue Nos.1 and 2. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of both parties and perused the records. 15. In the light of the above, the point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference?" 16. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants is admitted. Defendant No.1 acquired the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 3 and 5 under a Partition Deed dated 30.05.1979 entered into between himself and his brothers. The material on record points out that there is no oral or written document to establish that there was a partition by metes and bounds between the plaintiff and the defendants. The contention of the defendants is that defendant No.1 has acquired the property out of joint family funds; an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.218/P1 of Doddamagaravalli village; 10 acres of land in Sy.No.107 of Haliyoor village; 2 acres of land in Sy.No.540; 7 guntas of land in Sy.No.250; 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.310/2 of Doddamagaravalli village were given to the share of plaintiff. Apart from this, more than 20 acres of land called as 'Mavinahaklu Estate' was given to the share of plaintiff after retaining only 5 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.202/P1, which he had gifted to defendant Nos.2 to 4. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have specifically contended that the land gifted in their favour by defendant No.1 is very meager. Plaintiff was allotted huge extent of land measuring 20 acres. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have specifically contended that the land gifted in their favour by defendant No.1 is very meager. Plaintiff was allotted huge extent of land measuring 20 acres. All the properties, which are standing in the name of plaintiff, are not included in the suit and they want these lands to be included and partition be effected equally. 17. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment. The Trial Court has recorded that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. In addition to that, the properties claimed by the defendant in the written statement are also the joint family acquisition without including them in the suit for partition by metes and bounds. The instant suit brought in by the plaintiff is one for partial partition and not maintainable. As we see from the material on record and also the statement of the plaintiff, there was no partition between him and the defendants and he has claimed that he was doing business and some properties are his self-acquired properties. Defendant No.1 also claimed that he was doing soap-nut and paddy business out of which he has realized the funds and acquired certain properties. It is also forthcoming from the material on record that 10 acres of land in Sy.No.107 of Haliyoor village was acquired by defendant No.1 in the name of plaintiff and one D.T.Goutham, cousin brother of defendant No.1. These are the lands which are not included in the suit schedule properties and D.T.Goutham is a necessary party. What was the extent of land that he has acquired and whether he has invested any fund or is only a name lender, are all aspects to be determined. It is difficult to hold that the suit schedule properties and also the lands referred in the written statement of the defendants are the joint family properties or among them, what are all the properties are self-acquired either of the plaintiff or defendant No.1. 18. In a suit for partition, all the necessary parties and also all the joint family properties have to be brought in for effecting the partition by metes and bounds. The Trial Court is required to determine the property given to the plaintiff after his marriage and whether the joint family is in existence or not and what are the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff and also defendant No.1. The Trial Court is required to determine the property given to the plaintiff after his marriage and whether the joint family is in existence or not and what are the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff and also defendant No.1. Unless these properties are included and also D.T.Goutham is arrayed as one of the defendants, the evidence on record is incomplete and not sufficient to adjudicate the dispute between the parties effectively. 19. In a suit for partition, when the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has omitted certain properties, which could have been specifically mentioned in the written statement, it ought to have deferred the judgment and directed the plaintiff to include those properties and also array D.T.Goutham as party and then decide the case on merits. The material on record does not point out that the Trial Court has given such an opportunity to implead necessary parties and include the properties before pronouncing the judgment. Hence, the impugned judgment is incomplete and it is not decided on merits. 20. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the parties must be directed to include all the properties and implead D.T.Goutham as a party in the suit with a direction to the Trial Court to complete the pleadings, frame proper issues and to decide the case on merits without reference to any of the observations made hereinabove. Hence, the appeal merits consideration. In the result, the following; ORDER i) Both R.F.A.No.1410/2017 and RFA Cr.Ob.No.3/2020 are allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and decree is set aside. iii) The matter is remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to allow the parties to bring in all the properties and G.T.Goutham as one of the defendants, permit the parties to complete the pleadings, allow them to produce additional evidence and to decide the case on merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible; v) Without further notice, the parties shall appear before the Trial court on 6th November, 2023.