Property law

Yes, it's necessary for proper judgement by court. 

In a partition suit it is pertinent to implead everyone as necessary parties unless your suit will not be maintainable.

In partition suit every co- sharer of property are necessary  party, if any co sharer is deceased at the time of filing suit then his Lr's should have been impressed.

Yes.  Every co-sharer shall be included in the suit.

".... 2 of them sold their entitled shares ..." To whom? Are the transferees in possession? If so, How?

The query is short of material facts.

Thanks for the swift reply, Advocate Sir P Venu,

Please be clarified that,

of the defendants,

one of the legal heir ( x ) sold her share  to the plaintiff, who has been in seperate possession and enjoyment under an arrangement of consents from others. She died when the Partition suit was filed but not numbered.

Therefore  her( x ) Lrs filed, 

the problem is of her Lrs , 3 of them died now.

so it was ordered to include their legal heris.

secondly 

of the defendants, 3 of the sold their entitled shares to the plaintiff, who has been possession.

1 of them sold  to one of the defendant, he has also been in possession , but seperately in the rear part.

Therefore the transferees are co sharers, execept one who is son of the co-sharer, all habe been in possession but sepertely to say, in the front portion and rear portion.

Request, 

once a co-sharer sold her share, her right and interest exists no more,

even after her death it is necessary to dd her Lrs.?

Thaking you & Regards. 

If a suit for partition is contested by the defendants, then it becomes pertinent to implead the legal heirs of the deceased defendants or plaintiffs for proper adjudication.

If it becomes a cumbersome process then you can refer the matter to lok adalat for mediation an cmpromise settlement wherein all the parties to tghe suit including the legal heirs of the deceased parties can sign the compromise settlement jointly which will be decreed as compromise decree accordingly as per the terms of compromise

"1 of them sold  to one of the defendant, he has also been in possession , but seperately in the rear part."
Admittedly. there has been partition of the metes and bounds. Then why the partition suit?

Please post facts, avoiding subjective opinions.