for court fees and jurisdiction? OPD 4. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for? OPP 6. Relief. For Issues 1 and 5, the learned civil court held that “the plaintiff is owner in possession as co-sharer to the extent of share as mentioned and detailed in Schedule ABCD in the headnote and as such he is entitled to the decree in possession by way of partition. Accordingly, I decide both these issues in favour 2 Second Partition Suit 3-SLP(C) 9202-9204 OF 2016of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” Similarly, Issues 2, 3 and 4 were also decided in favour of the plaintiff, and the suit was accordingly decreed with costs. In a subsequent application, the learned civil court appointed a local commissioner. The first report came on 15th December 1996, and an additional report was submitted on 25th October 1997. 3.3 On 4th February, 1998, a final decree was drawn up in the above suit with only one