8 Against which, appeal has been filed by the appellants before the Sub-Court and in the Sub-Court the appellants have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 to receive the additional documents. The appellants have filed the sale deed dated 22.07.1959 which stands in the name of the deceased Gowriammal, a passbook of the Indian Bank, Syndicate Bank and F.D receipt of Syndicate Bank and the fair order in R.C.A.No.4/2006 and the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.2831. Apart from that they have filed receipts for the payment of rent for the locker. These documents were not filed before trial Court. The appellants have not contended that these documents rendered before trial Court but it was refused to admit by the trial Court. The appellants were unable to prove that despite exercise of due diligence, these documents were not within their knowledge or could not be produced by them before the trial Court. Except the 1st document, i.e., sale deed and other documents produced by the appellants are of no use to decide the substantial questions of law and facts. In the sale deed dated 22.07.1959 it has been stated that FLk;g ghu;j;j _tdk; nfsupak;khs; vd;gtUf;F. From that it is clear that Gowriammal was not employed. The property has been purchased in the year 1959. The husband did not own any immovable property. So there was no evidence either oral or document, how the property and the Fixed Deposit came into the hands of Gowriammal. The trial Court has not framed any issues regarding the non joinder of necessary party. If proper issues have been framed, the parties would be able to let in evidence according to the issues. The defendant has stated in his written statement that Sidhammal was not added as a party in the suit hence, the suit has been dismissed for non joinder of necessary party. As per the Rule 61 of the Civil Rules of Practice, every material proposition of fact and every proposition of law, which is affirmed by the one side and denied by the other shall be made the subject of a separate issue and every issue of fact shall be so framed as to indicate on whom the burden of proof lies. Therefore, as per the Civil Rules of Practice, the trial Court has not framed a separate issue regarding the non joinder of parties. If the issue has framed, then the appellants would have let in proper evidence. Since, the appellants have not proved that the property belongs to Gowriammal exclusively and the property purchased out of her own income or given by the husband of Gowriammal, as per Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, if the property was inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother it shall devolve upon the heirs of her father and as per Section 15(2)(b) if the property was inherited from her husband, then it shall devolve upon the heirs of the husband. Hence, in the absence of any concrete evidence, the appellants cannot maintain the suit and the appeal was allowed and the decree and judgment of the trial Court was reversed the
