The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit may be deemed not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties, failure to prove essential elements such as partition, and failure to provide valid notice under Section 80 CPC.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. The Plaintiffs have filed this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated, 30th June, 2007 passed by Sri Vishwanath Prasad, Sub Judge I, Munger in Title Suit No. 45 of 1992 dismissing the Plaintiff-Appellants suit.

2. The Plaintiffs-Appellants filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 45 of 1992 praying for declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to get necessary correction in the record of Munger Khas Mahal and get their names entered in respect of 32.21 acres of land in Mauja Kutlupur and also for declaration that Khas Mahal Department are bound to make the aforesaid correction in relevant records. The Plaintiffs-Appellants claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that Bhikhdhari Choudhary died leaving behind two sons namely Hirday Narayan Choudhary and Ayodhya Prasad Choudhary. Hirday Narayan Choudhary had two sons namely Radha Krishna Choudhary and Krishna Choudhary. Radha Krishna Choudhary is the Plaintiff who was "Karta" and manager of joint family. Ayodhya Prasad Choudhary died leaving behind five sons namely Shivnandan Choudhary, Brahmdeo Choudhary, Ramdeo Choudhary, Satya Narayan Choudhary and Panchanand Choudhary. When Hirday Narayan Choudhary was alive, he acquired landed properties for the benefit of joint family within the zamindari of Munger Khas Mahal along with his co-villager, Yugal Prasad Choudhary. The said acquisition was made in the name of Shivnandan Choudhary and Yugal Prasad Choudhary. Both were representing their families and each family had 50 per cent share.

3. The further case is that in the year 1934-35 in the Khas Mahal survey, the aforesaid acquired land was recorded in their names in Khata No. 154. The lands of Mauja Kutlupur Kalan were recorded in their names in Khata No. 151The total land measures about 148.43 acres. In Khata No. 154, 131.02 acres land was recorded whereas in Khata No. 151,17.41 acres land was recorded. The further case is that Yugal Prasad Choudhary and his three co-sharers had got 50 per cent share in the aforesaid land which they separated in due course of time. The remaining 50 per cent was also partitioned between the branches of Hirday Narayan Choudhary and Ayodhya Prasad Choudhary half and half by means of registered deed dated, 30th October, 1948. The Khas Mahal survey held in 1952-53 did not take notice of the aforesaid partition. Therefore, Radha Krishna Choudhary filed an objection i.e. Mistake Case No. 19 and the Settlement Officer ordered on 26th September, 1957 that the aforesaid plots in question be entered separately in the names of Shivnandan Choudhary and his cousin, Radha Krishna Choudhary in Khatiyan and the remaining half portion should be entered separately in the name of Yugal Prasad Choudhary and his co-sharers. However, the Jamabandi of those lands were running in the name of Shivnandan Choudhary and Yugal Prasad Choudhary. In fact, Yugal Prasad Choudhary and his co-sharers had got 8 Anna share while Radha Krishna Choudhary and Shivnandan Choudhary had got 4 Anna interest each. In Mistake Case No. 20, Settlement Officer ordered that entry be made accordingly. However, his order was not fully implemented with regard to lands of Kutlupur. The co-sharers have already divided the properties and they are coming in possession separately over the lands fallen in their share but the wrong entry in the Khas Mahal may create complication and therefore, the Plaintiffs are requesting Khas Mahal Authorities to make necessary correction. The Plaintiffs also sent notice under Section 80 CPC but since the order of Settlement Officer was not fully complied with, the Plaintiffs were compelled to institute the suit.

4. The Respondents appeared and filed a contesting written statement. Besides taking various legal pleas, mainly it was contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. None of the heirs of recorded Raiyats have been made party in the suit. No notice under Section 80 CPC was ever sent to the Defendants. Al