JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. During the pendency of this appeal the sole appellant B. Mohan Rao has been died on 04.12.2020 and his legal heirs were substituted vide order dated 12.10.2022 through I.A. No. 7141 of 2021. 2. Present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/defendant no. 1 for setting aside the judgment dated 29.05.2019 (decree signed on 10.06.2019) passed by Sri Kumar Pawan, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur, in Title Partition Suit No. 155 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent has been decreed in the favour of plaintiff. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one B. Sarojani instituted suit for partition of the suit property claiming to carve out a separate Takhta in respect of 1/3rd share in the suit scheduled property i.e. double storied pucca house property consisting of 12 rooms, with verandah on both sides, 5 kitchen, bathrooms, latrines, standing within plot no. 1049 measuring an area 0.06 acres situated at Mouza Kitadih, Thana No. 1167, P.S. Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. 4. It is alleged that both parties are Hindus and governed by Hindu Law in the matter of inheritance and succession. The suit property belong to and possessed by one common ancestor Bollu Nar Singha Rao who died in the year 1978 leaving behind him two daughters, namely, B. Sarojani (Plaintiff) and Kaligatla Chinna (mother of the defendant no. 2) and one adopted son namely, B. Mohan Rao (defendant no. 1) as his legal heirs and successors and they came into joint possession over the suit properties. 5. It is further alleged that Kaligatla China who was married with Kaligatal Satya Narayana also died while suit property was in joint possession with the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 leaving behind their only daughter V. Laxmi who is defendant no. 2 in this suit. As such the suit property has been coming in joint possession and enjoyment of both parties and there has been no previous partition by mets and bounds amongst them. Since about two months various disputes and differences have cropped up between the parties hence plaintiff is feeling inconvenience to the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, she asked the defendants for amicable partition of the suit property by mets and bounds on 13.10.2015 but they declined. Since about two months various disputes and differences have cropped up between the parties hence plaintiff is feeling inconvenience to the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, she asked the defendants for amicable partition of the suit property by mets and bounds on 13.10.2015 but they declined. It is alleged that the value of suit property is about Rs. 54,00,000/- for which fixed court fees has been paid. The suit property is situated within the jurisdiction of the court. Accordingly, she is entitled for the relief claimed. 6. Upon service of summons defendant no. 1 B. Mohan Rao/ appellant appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement raising objection about maintainability of the present suit with further plea that no cause of actions for the suit has ever arised in favour of the appellant and the suit is barred by law of limitation and also barred by principles of estoppel, weaiver and acquiescence as well as suit is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The special plea of the defendant is that B. Nar Singha Rao died leaving behind his two daughters, namely, B Sarojani-plaintiff and Kaligatla Chinna and one adopted son, namely, B Mohan Rao/defendant no. 1. It is further contested that after death of Bollu Nar Singha Rao his both daughters, plaintiff and defendant no. 2 were residing at their matrimonial home after marriage. The suit property has never been in joint possession and enjoyment of both the parties of the suit and the same is being possessed by the answering defendant himself exclusively after the death of his father. It is further stated that the said Bollu Nar Singha Rao has purchased the suit property during his lifetime and the entire structure over the land has been constructed by the defendant no. 1 from his own earning and no other members of his family has paid a single paisa for the construction of rooms. Accordingly, they are not entitled to get any share and the claim of plaintiff for partition of the schedule suit property is liable to be dismissed. 7. The defendant no. 2, V. Laxmi, grand daughter of common ancestor Bollu Nar Singha Rao has also supported the plaintiff’s case and claim by way of filing a joint compromise petition along with plaintiff. 8. 7. The defendant no. 2, V. Laxmi, grand daughter of common ancestor Bollu Nar Singha Rao has also supported the plaintiff’s case and claim by way of filing a joint compromise petition along with plaintiff. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the learned trial court has settled following issues for adjudication: (i) Is the suit maintainable in the present form? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation? (iv) Is the suit barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (v) Is the suit barred under the provisions of Specific Relief Act? (vi) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? (vii) Whether there is unity of title and jointnesss of possession between the parties over the suit land? (viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminarily decree for partition? If so, to what extent? (ix) To what other relief or reliefs, if any the plaintiff is entitled too? 9. In course of trial plaintiff himself examined as a witness along with PW-2/M. Ratanallh and also adduced following documentary evidence. Exhibit 1, registered sale deed no. 769 dated 14.2.1964. Exhibit 2 series are the rent receipts. 10. On the other hand defendant no. 1 has also examined two witnesses i.e. DW-1, T. Sahilaja and DW-2, B. Mohan Rao defendant no. 1 himself. No documentary evidence has been adduced and relied upon by the defendant no. 1. 11. The main issues involved in this case were issue nos. 7 and 8 which have been taken together by the learned trial court for adjudication. The learned trial court critically analyzing the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record came to the concrete finding that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is admitted. The suit property was purchased by Bollu Nar Singh Rao is in the year 1964 through registered sale deed is also admitted and the defendant no. 2 in his evidence at Para 23 of cross examination has categorically stated that the house was constructed over the suit premises by his father B. Nar Singha Rao in the year 1964. Trust worthy evidence was adduced by plaintiff showing that the house over the suit premises were not built by the defendant no. 1 of his own earning and expenditure. Trust worthy evidence was adduced by plaintiff showing that the house over the suit premises were not built by the defendant no. 1 of his own earning and expenditure. Plaintiff also has 1/3rd share in the suit property with defendant nos.1 & 2. In the above premises the learned trial court arrived at conclusion that there are unity of title and possession between the parties over the suit property and each party has got 1/3rd share therein. Accordingly, issue nos. 7 & 8 were decided in favour of the plaintiff against defendant no. 1. The learned trial court further decided issues nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 in favour of plaintiff on the basis of decision on the main issues and ordered that the suit is decreed on contest with cost against the defendant no. 1 and on admission on compromise against defendant no. 2. It was also made clear that plaintiff is entitled to get 1/3rd share over the suit property. Defendant no. 1 is also entitled to get 1/3rd share and defendant no. 2 is also entitled to get 1/3rd share over the suit property. Accordingly, the court directed to prepare the preliminary decree on appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner to carve out a separate Takhta for preparation of final decree. 12. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and decree learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned court below has committed grave error of law and arrived at wrong conclusion while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 13. The learned counsel has raised following points objecting the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. 14. The learned trial court has ignored the very vital fact that the propitious late Bollu Nar Singha Rao had died leaving behind his two daughters namely, B. Sarojni (plaintiff) and Kaligatla China defendant no. 2 and one adopted son namely, B. Mohan Rao “appellant” along with suit scheduled property. The daughters were not in joint possession with the present appellant rather they had gone to their respective matrimonial home after solemnization of their marriage. As such there is no unity of title and possession in respect of the said scheduled property. 2 and one adopted son namely, B. Mohan Rao “appellant” along with suit scheduled property. The daughters were not in joint possession with the present appellant rather they had gone to their respective matrimonial home after solemnization of their marriage. As such there is no unity of title and possession in respect of the said scheduled property. Learned court below has further failed to take into consideration that structure standing upon the suit land has been constructed by the appellant from his own earning and no other members of his family has contributed a single pie for the construction of the house. Hence, they are not entitled to get any share. The learned trial court has failed to decide each issue separately with recording specific finding but the issues nos. 1-6 have been decided in common although they are different and distinct and required to be dealt with separately. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the oral testimony of plaintiff, DW-2 as well as DW-1 T.Shailaja and arrived at wrong conclusion that both the parties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 15. It is admitted by plaintiff/P.W. 1 that her marriage was solemnized in the year 1952 and went to her matrimonial home but the suit was instituted in the year 2015. It is also admitted fact that performa defendant no. 2 is still residing at Vishakhapatnam “Andhra Pradesh.” 16. Learned court below has failed to consider that all the legal heirs of B. Nar Singha Rao has not been joint as party in this suit, hence, partition suit must be dismissed on this issue alone. 17. It is further submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into account that B. Nar Singha Rao died in the year 1978 but the present suit was filed in the year 2015 after considerable delay, hence, there was no cause of action for the suit. The learned court below has further failed to record the concrete finding on the issue of construction of the house and other structures by the appellant through his own earning and not by his father. In the premises of aforesaid ground it is prayed by learned counsel for the appellant that impugned judgment and decree may be set aside and this appeal be allowed. 18. In the premises of aforesaid ground it is prayed by learned counsel for the appellant that impugned judgment and decree may be set aside and this appeal be allowed. 18. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that there is no legal substance in any of the grounds of objection against the impugned judgment and decree by the appellants. It is well proved before the learned trial court that the suit property was purchased by B. Nar Singha Rao in the year 1964 who died in the year 1978 leaving behind him two daughters and one son who are plaintiff and defendants in this case. It is also well proved that both parties are Hindu and governed by provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. There is no doubt that propitious B. Nar Singha Rao died intestate therefore, the property left by him was devolve upon his heirs and legal representatives of the deceased as per provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act which reads as under: THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 8. General rules of succession in the case of males - The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter: (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule. (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule. (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased. (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. The Scheduled appended to the said Act prescribe in the list of class I heir which are as under. (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased. (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. The Scheduled appended to the said Act prescribe in the list of class I heir which are as under. THE SCHEDULE (See Section 8) HEIRS IN CLASS I AND CLASS II Class I Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; widow of a predeceased son; son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son 1 [son of a predeceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son]. There is no doubt that plaintiff and defendants are class 1 heirs of the deceased, hence, entitled for equal share in the property left by the deceased. The appellant/defendant has miserably failed to prove his own plea of construction of house through his own earnings and expenditure rather in his evidence in cross examination has substantially admitted that the house was constructed by his father. It is also settled principle of law that possession of one co-owner is possession for all and merely because other co-sharers are residing separately or elsewhere does not disentitle them from their share in the property. Therefore, the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly appreciated, scanned and considered the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree calling for any interference by way of this appeal which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed with cost. 19. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the suit property was purchased by B. Nar Singha Rao during his lifetime in year 1964 along with some structures and house was constructed by him who died in 1978 leaving behind his two daughters, namely, B. Sarojani and Kaligatla Chinna and adopted son namely, B. Mohan Rao-defendant no. 1/present appellant and Kaligatla Chinna has been died leaving behind her daughter V. Laxmi, defendant no. 2. 1/present appellant and Kaligatla Chinna has been died leaving behind her daughter V. Laxmi, defendant no. 2. Accordingly, plaintiff, B. Sarojani has claimed 1/3rd shared in the suit scheduled property and for its partition by mets and bound. The main issue raised by original defendant no. 1 i.e. appellant is that the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 after their marriage have been residing separately and there is no jointness of the property cannot legally be entertained. It is settled law that in case of co-owners and successor who succeed the property of their ancestor are always deemed to be in possession of the property jointly unless and until the partition takes place by mets and bound. The possession of one co-sharer is possession for all. In the instant case the original defendant B. Mohan Rao has not denied that plaintiff is not his sister and defendant no. 2 is admittedly his deceased sister’s daughter as is apparent from Para 11 of the evidence of DW-3, B. Mohan Rao wherein he stated: chŒ ujflag jko fVLdks esa ukSdjh djrs FksA lu~ 1964 bZŒ esa vodk’k ÁkIr fd,A chŒ ujflag jko lu~ 1979 bZŒ esa ejs ysfdu chŒ ukjk;.k vEek dc ejh ;kn ugha gSA mudh cM+h csVh okfnuh chŒ ljkstuh gSA nwljh csVh dk uke dyh xVyk fpUuk gSA nwljh csVh ds ifr dk uke dkyh xVyk lR;ukjk;.k FksA dyh xVyk fpUuk ,oa dkyh xVyk lR;ukjk;.k dh e`R;q gks xbZ gSa ,oa mudh csVh Áfroknh la[;k 2 gSA 20. As per evidence of the defendant no. 1 no other legal heirs or successor of late B. Nar Singha Rao has been mentioned by which it may be concluded that suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. 21. DW-1, T. Shailaja who is noneless but own daughter of defendant no. 1. 22. The next point raised by learned counsel for the appellants is regarding construction of houses by the defendant no. 1 through his own earnings and expenditure is concerned, it is admitted in examination-in-chief by DW-(1) B. Mohan Rao that the suit premises was constructed by him. He was working in the Bokaro Steel Plant and retired in the year 1992 and has constructed the house of his own earning and got its repair from time to time. The plaintiff and defendant no. 2 never resided after their marriage in the said suit property. Hence, plaintiff and defendant no. He was working in the Bokaro Steel Plant and retired in the year 1992 and has constructed the house of his own earning and got its repair from time to time. The plaintiff and defendant no. 2 never resided after their marriage in the said suit property. Hence, plaintiff and defendant no. 2 are not entitled for any share in the suit property. However, he has failed to state the number of rooms in the said premises but admits in unequivocal terms in his cross examination in Para 22 & 23 that: fooknh ifjlj dk edku lu~ 1964 bZŒ esa cuk FkkA mles fdruk [kpkZ gqvk Fkk ugha crk ldrk gw¡A fooknh ifjlj dk edku cyh ujflagkjko us cuk;k FkkA fooknh ifjlj esa okfnuh dks 1@3 fgLlk gS] esjk Hkh 1@3 fgLlk gS ,oa Áfroknh la[;k 2 dk Hkh 1@3 fgLlk gSA 23. It is also settled law that for claiming partition of the joint property there is no prescribed limitation and it may be claimed by any time by any of the co-sharer who feels in-convenience or his share is denied. 24. Considering the overall aspects of this case as discussed above I don’t find any legal substance in any of the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellants. There is no iota of legal evidence to take different view from the learned trial court. It appears that the learned trial court has considered all the aspect in proper perspective of the factual background of the case and appreciating the evidence available on record rightly decided the share of original plaintiff. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which is hereby upheld and confirmed. This appeal has no merits, accordingly, dismissed with cost. 25. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent to concerned trial court for information and needful. 26. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7142 of 2021 stands disposed of.