Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Aravindan C.M. S/o Late P.C. Karunakaran – Appellant
Versus
Sri Sathyasai Seva Organisation – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 697 of 2023
Decided On : 01-03-2024
Non-Joinder - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100, Order XLII Rule 1 - Sankara Pillai vs. Baiju and Others, 2021 KHC 730 : 2021 KHC Online 730 : 2021 (6) KLT 400
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit to set aside a gift deed and for permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit for non-joinder of necessary party, and the appellate court concurred with the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit without providing an opportunity to the plaintiffs to implead the necessary party. The appellate court also failed to consider the legal position and dismissed the appeal based on non-joinder of necessary party.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit for non-joinder without providing an opportunity to implead the necessary party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that whenever a court finds non-joinder of necessary parties, it is necessary to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead the necessary parties and proceed with the matter. Dismissal of the suit for non-joinder, without giving such an opportunity, is not a fair procedure.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the verdicts, and remanded the matter for adjudication after impleading the necessary party. The plaintiffs were directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the 1st defendant within ten days, and all parties were given liberty to contest and adduce additional evidence.
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
1. This regular second appeal has been filed under order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereinafter) challenging the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 15 of 2020 dated 20.06.2023 on the files of the Court of the Additional District Judge-IV, Palakkad arose from decree and judgment in O.S. No. 170 of 2012 dated 30.09.2019 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Chittur. The appellants herein are plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the respondents are the defendants in the above suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. No representation for the 2nd respondent.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as “plaintiffs” and “defendants” with reference to their status before the trial court.
4. On hearing both sides, this appeal stands admitted by formulating the following substantial questions of law:
2. Whether the First Appellate Court properly addressed the question of non-joinder?
5. In this matter, the plaintiffs filed the suit for setting aside Ext.A4 gift deed and for permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaintiffs’ case is that, few residents of Koduvayur including the plaintiffs joined together and formed ‘Sri Satya Sai Seva Samithi, Koduvayur’ to conduct bhajans and other spiritual activities. Thereafter, the official receiver in O.S. No. 34/1960, Sub Court, Palakkad Adv. T.M. Parameswaran Namboodiripadu on behalf of the Kurthiravattom Nair Estate executed Ext.A3 gift deed with sanction of the court in favour of Sri Satya Sai Seva Samithi to construct ‘Bhajana Mandiram’. Though, the property was gifted to one Kesavan Nair, who was a member of the Samithi, he had no independent right, title or interest over the same. Later, Sri. Kesavan Nair had executed a deed of settlement Ext.A4 in favour of Sri Satya Sai Seva Trust, Kerala. Hence, Ext.A4 executed by Sri.Kesavan Nair to be declared as sham, void ab initio, null and void, non est in law and the same did not bind the Satya Sai Seva Samithi, Koduvayur.
6. The 1st defendant filed written statement and resisted the suit. It is contented by the 1st defendant that the receiver of the Ottapalam Sub Court in O.S. No. 34/1960, with the permission of the Court had transferred the property in favour of Sri Satya Sai Seva Samithi. Thereafter, then committee members and chairman Sri. Kesavan Nair decided to transfer the property in favour of Sri Satya Sai Seva Trust, Kerala as per Ext.A4 deed. The 1st defendant never raised claim on the property owned by Sri Satya Sai Seva Trust, Kerala and the 1st defendant is not even a member of the said Trust.
7. The 2nd defendant also filed written statement contending that the Sri Satya Sai Seva Samithi, Koduvayur had nothing to do with Satya Sai Trust, Kerala or Satya Sai Seva Organization. Both defendants raised contention that Sri Satya Sai Seva Trust, Kerala is a necessary party to the suit and the suit is otherwise bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
8. The trial court raised necessary issues and tried the matter. PW-1 examined and Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DW1 examined and Exts.B1 to B3 marked on the side of defendants. Exts.C1 and C2 were also marked as court exhibits.
9. Finally, the trial court dismissed the suit for non-joinder of necessary party. The trial court also found that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.
10. Though, appeal has been filed challenging the decree and judgment of the trial court vide A.S. No. 15/2020, the Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and concurred the finding of the trial court, giving thrust upon non-joinder of necessary parties.
11. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the specific case of the plaintiffs is th
AI
Dismissal of a suit for non-joinder of necessary parties without providing an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead the necessary parties is not a fair procedure and is legally impermissible.
Non-joinder of necessary parties constitutes grounds for reversing or modifying a decree, requiring the trial court to provide opportunity for amendment before final judgment.
Non-joinder of a necessary party is a ground to reverse or vary a decree in appeal, and the court may order a remand to afford an opportunity to implead the necessary party.
Non-joinder of necessary parties is a fatal defect that cannot be rectified at the appellate stage, as established by precedent.
No suit can be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties or proper parties and an opportunity must be given to the plaintiff to implead the party and to contest the case.
Misjoinder of parties does not invalidate a suit against a necessary party; courts have discretion in granting specific performance based on established agreements.
The court affirmed that a suit for declaration does not necessitate all co-owners as parties if their interests don't impede the plaintiff's claims.
The main legal point established is that the appellate court has the discretion to permit the joinder of necessary parties at the appellate stage, as provided under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of ....
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC casts duty upon court to ensure impleadment and deletion of party, which may or may not be necessary for adjudication of case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
