M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8.3.2007 passed by Sub -Judge -VII, Deoghar in Title Partition Suit No. 32/2000 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner along with proforma respondents -defendants.
(2.) THE question that arose for consideration is as to whether daughter being a co -parcener is a necessary party in a suit for partition of ancestral co -parcenary property. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The plaintiff -respondents Ist set filed petition suit No. 32/2000 for partition of joint family ancestral property. Defendants -respondents No. 2 and 3 contested the suit by filing written statement taking various pleas including non -joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner -defendant filed a petition for adding Savitri Devi, Usha Devi and Mina Devi as defendants in the suit on the ground that they are co -parceners having equal right title and interest over the ancestral property. The plaintiff objected the same by filing rejoinder. The court below rejected the said application by passing impugned order on the ground inter alia that above named persons, Savitri Devi, Uaha Devi and Mina Devi, daughters of Sri Lal Sharma have no legal right over the suit property. Hence, this application by the defendant -petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground inter alia that after amendment of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, daughter of a co -parcener has right title and interest over the ancestral property. Learned Counsel further submitted that daughters of Sri Lal Sharma have equal shares in the suit property and therefore, the court below has committed serious error of law in rejecting the application for impleading them as parties in the suit.;