A suit is deemed invalid for non-joinder of necessary parties, mandating that all relevant parties, including the State, must be included to ascertain rightful ownership in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

This second appeal is against a divergent finding in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.

2. The plaintiff sought declaration of title over the property. Two defendants in the suit are; the Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority and the Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation.

3. Defendant No.2 contested the suit and raised the contention that the suit is not maintainable for not impleading the State as a party. It is the stand of the defendant No.2- Municipal Corporation that the State is running a hospital in the suit property and the property belongs to the State.

4. The trial Court accepted the plea and dismissed the suit on the premise that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree dismissing the suit, the plaintiff filed appeal before First Appellate Court in R.A.No.577/2010 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mysore. First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and consequently decreed the suit and directed demolition of the constructions made in the suit property and also directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within nine months.

6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, defendant No.2 is before this Court.

7. This appeal was admitted on 22.02.2019, to answer the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of actual facts by the plaintiff?

(ii) Whether the suit in O.S.No.537/2002 is liable to be remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to dispose of the same along with O.S.No.485/2013 filed by the Government of Karnataka and others as per law?"

8. Learned Counsel for defendant No.2/appellant would place reliance on the judgment of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, in O.S.No.485/2013, which is rendered on 12.04.2023. The said suit is in respect of very same property and said suit is filed by the State against the plaintiff and also the defendants of the present suit.

9. In the said suit in O.S. No.485/2013, the State made a claim that the decree passed in O.S No.537/2002 and R.A No.577/2010 referred to above are not binding on the plaintiff/State.

10. Defendant No.1 in the said suit, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No.537/2002 contested the suit and made a claim that she is the owner of the property pursuant to the judgment and decree in O.S No.537/2002 and R.A No.577/2010.

11. The trial Court decreed the suit in O.S. No.577/2010 in part, holding that the State cannot claim ownership as long as the decree in R.A No.577/2010 is set aside. The defendant No.1 in the said suit namely, the plaintiff in O.S.No.537/2002 is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff/State from the suit property without due process of law.

12. Referring to the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the State is found to be in possession of the property and the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court without impleading the State as a party to the proceedings are not sustainable and have to be set aside.

13. It is the submission that the trial court rightly dismissed the suit for want of non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the Appellate Court has not noticed the fact that the State is in possession of the property and the State is a necessary party to the said suit.

14. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has accepted the finding that the State is in possession of the property as the judgment and decree in O.S No.485/2013 are not questioned.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent No.2 would submit that t