S.N.MODI, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant -appellant Chiraguddin against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Sikar, dated December 22, 1967.
(2.) THE following pedegree table will show the relationship between the parties: Haji Umar | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -| Hussain Allabeh Sandal | | (D -1) | | | Nazir | | - - - - - - - - - - - -| - - - - - - - - - - - - -| (Plaintiff No. 1) | Abdulla Kasim Lukman Mukhtiar | (D -2) (D -3) (D -4) (Plaintiff No. 2) | | | | | | | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -| | | | Chiraguddin Amin Gulab Nabi (D -5) (D -6) (D -7) The plaintiffs came with the case that the shop described in paragraph No. 2 of the plaint was the property of Haji Umar and the plaintiffs have got one -third share in it. They, therefore, prayed for partition of the shop amongst the descendants of Haji Umar. It was also pleaded that the disputed shop was let out to Allabeli on an annual rent of Rs. 20/ -. The defendants Sandal, Abdulla, Kasim, Lukman, Amin and Guiam Nabi admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. The suit was contested by the defendant -appellant Chiraguddin. He pleaded that the suit shop along with other properties belonging to Haji Umar was partitioned some 20 years ago amongst the descendants of Haji Umar and further that the disputed shop fell to Allabeli's share. He further pleaded that he has been in possession of the disputed shop for last 40 years. It was also pleaded that the daughters of Hussain, namely Mst Chhoti, Rahiman and, Kariman were necessary parties to the suit and in their absence, the suit, was not maintainable. Some more pleas were raised, which would be clear from the following issues framed by the trial court: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
(3.) THE trial court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, recorded the following findings: (1) That the defendants Nos. 5 to 7 are not in possession of the suit shop as tenants of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 4. (2) That the plaintiffs and their sisters Mst. Chhoti, Rahiman and Kariman have one -thud share in the suit shop. (3) That the omission to implead Mst. Chhoti, Rahiman and Kariman is not fatal to the suit as they are only proper parties. (4) That the defendants Nos. 5 to 7 have failed to prove that the suit shop was allotted to their share at the time of partition amongst the descendants of Haji Umar. (5) That the suit is clearly within time and the defendant -appellant has failed to prove adverse possession. (6) That there is no such custom prevalent in the family of the parties which excludes daughters and sisters from inheritance. (7) That the suit property was properly valued, and the court fee, was sufficiently paid. ;