JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Second Appeal is filed under section 100 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the impugned Judgment and order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the First appellate court in R.F.A. No. 9 of 2019.

3. A brief background of the case is that, the appellant states that he is the owner of the House Pass No. 343/2015, which he had obtained in the year 2015. However, in spite of being the owner of this House Pass, the Civil Judge-I had issued the Heirship Certificate No. 788/2018 to the respondent without his knowledge and he was not aware of the newspaper publication done by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent had filed a Civil Suit No. 125/2018, for cancellation of the House Pass No. 343/2015 which was issued to the present appellant. The Civil Suit which is still kept pending till date. During the pendency of this civil suit, the appellant had approached the 1st Appellate Court, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl against the Heirship Certificate which was issued to the respondent without his knowledge. The learned Appellate Court in its Order dated 08.04.2021 in R.F.A. No. 9/2019 passed the impugned order in favour of the respondent.

4. Aggrieved by this, the present appellant has approached this Court by filing the Regular Second Appeal. The substantial question of law framed by this Court in its Order dated 09.08.2021 are:

(i) whether the learned Trial Court could have come to a finding on question of fact without any evidence being adduced.

(ii) Whether a claim/suit could have been decided when there is non-joinder of a necessary party.

(iii) whether the question Heirship could have been decided, when the claimed of the respondent on the suit land was based upon the sale made by the original owner of the land to the respondent and not due to any filial/blood/family relationship.

5. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant submits that with regard to the first point of the substantial question of law, it is seen that no evidence was recorded by the Court of the learned Civil Judge when the court granted the Heirship Certificate on 25.06.2018. The learned trial court had observed that although notice was published in the local newspaper no objection was received as to issuance of Heirship Certificate to the applicant/respondent in respect of the Village Council pass 9.8.197 and accordingly Heirship Certificate was issued. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the 1st Appellate Court had observed that there was a newspaper publication, he submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in R.F.A. No. 24/2021, Order dated 17.09.2021 had observed that even if a notice was issued through a newspaper publication, there is a possibility that the newspaper publication may not have been read and being necessary party in the matter. He further submits that though the learned Appellate Court mentions in paragraph No. 6 of the impugned judgment and order dated 08/04/2021, that he had heard the appellant on 24.03.2021 and the respondent on the next date, i.e. 25.03.2021, the deposition of the appellant and the respondent are not recorded. He submits that the appellant had not made an admission as recorded by the 1st Appellate Court and that the learned 1st Appellate Court had erred in coming to a decision without any evidence being recorded and the evidence before the learned Appellate court was not considered in its proper perspective. In support of his point the learned counsel has cited the decision of the Apex Court in Kochukakkada Aboobacker (Dead) by LRs. and Others vs. Attah Kasim and Others, (1996) 7 SCC 389.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the matter cannot be decided without the appellant being made a necessary party since he is the owner of the House Pass No. 343/2015 and the Heirship Certificate No. 788/201