Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 8, 39, 42, 54

Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: O. I, R.10

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) Ss. 8, 39, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R.10---Suit for declaration, partition, possession, mesne profits, cancellation of mutation entries and permanent injunction---Inheritance---Status of plaintiff as legal heir established---Adoption plea disbelieved---Non-joinder of necessary parties---Duty of Court to implead necessary parties---Consequential relief of partition and possession---Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration, partition, possession, mesne profits, cancellation of mutation entries and permanent injunction before the Trial Court and asserted that he was successor-in-interest of late GM ; that late GM had three sons; that he was grandson of GM , being son of GS ; and that petitioner/defendant, who was his brother, had illegally deprived him of his lawful Shari share through an illegal mutation entry---Trial Court partly decreed the suit---Appeal filed by petitioner/defendant remained unsuccessful---Validity---Petitioner/defendant denied in his written statement that respondent/plaintiff was legal heir of late GS and pleaded that late GS had adopted respondent/plaintiff as well as one daughter, therefore, respondent/plaintiff could not claim any legal/Shari right in the legacy left by late GS ---Trial Court and Appellate Court thoroughly examined the issue and concurrently held that respondent/plaintiff was son of late GS , and that the plea taken by petitioner/defendant in such behalf had no substance, particularly when certain other mutation entries stood in the name of respondent/plaintiff as well as in the names of legal heirs of late GS ---Said mutation entries had admittedly never been assailed by petitioner/defendant before any forum, therefore, the fora below had rightly held that respondent/plaintiff was legal heir of late GS ---Trial Court declined the relief of partition and possession to respondent/plaintiff solely on the ground that other legal heirs of late GS were not party to the suit, therefore, no effective decree could be passed determining rights of the parties or making an order of partition---Trial Court committed an error in refusing the relief of partition and…