: 1 : sa.688.2010 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.688 OF 2010 Shri Krishna @ Kisan Sadu Pawale .. Appellant V/s. Shri Shankar Sadu Pawale .. Respondent Mr.S.A. Sawant for the Appellant CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 15, 2011 P.C.: 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the trial Court and the appellate Court in R.C.S. No.186 of 2002 and Civil Appeal No.870 of 2006 respectively. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition without joining his sisters as parties to that suit. He had only joined his brother as the defendant in the suit. In these circumstances, both the trial Court and the appellate Court have dismissed the suit on the ground that there was non-joinder of parties. 2. Mr.Sawant, the learned Advocate for the appellant places reliance on Order 1 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and submits that the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit and ought to have : 2 : sa.688.2010 decided the claim of the appellant. 3. In a Suit for partition, it is obvious that the shares of each person would differ depending on the member of co-sharers. Admittedly the plaintiff and Defendant have 3 sisters. If the plaintiff chooses to join only his brother as the defendant to the suit and not the sisters, on the premise that they had relinquished their rights, in my opinion, the suit would not be maintainable. Apart from this, it is submitted by the learned advocate, that, the respondent also pleaded that the sisters had relinquished their shares in the suit property. Without the sisters being made parties to the suit, it is difficult to accept even this statement of the defendant as it would only suit both the plaintiff and the defendant not to have the sisters before the Court so as to increase their own share in the suit property. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, nothing survives in Civil application No.1846 of 2010 and the same is dismissed accordingly. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)