Proper party inclusion is essential in property disputes, and claims of fraud must be substantiated by convincing evidence.

JUDGMENT : 

K. V. ARAVIND, J. 

1. Heard Sri. H.S. Suhas, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. H.E. Ramesha, learned counsel for Sri. H.C. Prakasha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 6(a, b, d and f), and Sri. V.F. Kumbar, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC assails the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2009 passed in R.A. No.118/2008 by the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, 'the appellate Court), whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2008 passed in O.S. No.598/2006 by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & J.M.F.C., Devanahalli (for short, 'the trial Court'), came to be set aside. It is pertinent to note that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings either in O.S. No.598/2006 or in R.A. No.118/2008.

3. I.A. No.3/2013 was filed by the appellant seeking permission to prosecute the appeal, which came to be allowed, and the appellant was accordingly permitted to prosecute the appeal. By order dated 26.03.2019, the following substantial questions of law were admitted for consideration by this Court:

"1. Is the appellant a necessary party to suit?

2. Whether the reversal of the judgment of the trial Court by the first appellate Court in the facts and circumstances is legally justifiable?"

4. The parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. However, for the sake of convenience, the appellant herein shall be referred to as 'the appellant'.

5. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 instituted O.S. No.598/2006 against defendant Nos.1 to 9 seeking a judgment and decree declaring that the sale deed dated 09.09.2004 is not binding on the plaintiffs, and further declaring the plaintiffs as the owners of the suit schedule property, together with a permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendant Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 filed their written statements denying the averments in the plaint and contending, inter alia, that the suit property had been sold by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the appellant herein.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues;

"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are the owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the title by virtue of Panchayath Settlement (Sthira AsthiBhaga Patra) arrived at on defendant (sic). 24-3-1997?

2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the Sale Deed dated 9.9.2004, registered document No. YN-1-12469/2004-2005, CD No.YAND-83, Book No.I, in respect of suit schedule property is not binding on them since the 3rd defendant have no right to execute the said deed and also obtained the said deed by defendants. No.1 and 2 by playing fraud in the defendant No.3?

3) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that, the 3rd defendant acquired the right, title and interest on the suit schedule property by virtue of Certificate of Registration of a tenant dated 16.4.1982 and execution of registered sale deed dated 9.9.2004 of suit schedule property in valid?

4) Whether the defendant No. 2 proves that, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the suit?

6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled the relief as prayed in the suit?

7) What order or decree?"

6.1 The trial Court answered the issues as under:

"i) Issue No.1. : In the Negative

ii) Issue No.2. : In the Negative

iii) Issue No.3. : As per discussion

iv) Issue No.4. : In the Negative

v) Issue No.5. : In the negative

vi) Issue No.6. : In the negative

vii) Issue No.7. : As per final order for the following"