SHINGHAL, J.—Plaintiffs Chhogalal and Laxminarain, the present respondents, instituted a suit against defendants appellants Chuna and Bhura in the court of the learned Munsiff of Nawa on July 3, 1962, for the recovery of Rs. 1047/- on the basis of a promissory note (Ex. 1) said to have been executed on June 24, 1960 in favour of Bhuramal and Chhogalal. Bhuramal died and the plaintiffs claimed that the promissory note having been executed in favour of the joint Hindu family, Bhuramals interest devolved by survivorship on them. They admitted that Mst. Mangi, being Bhuramals daughter, was his legal representative, and arrayed her as a proforma defendant on the ground that she was not present at the time of the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs, however, clearly prayed for the grant of a decree exclusively in their favour. The defendants denied the execution of the promissory note but pleaded, at the same time, that it had been written in favour of Chhogalal and Bhuramal in their individual capacity and not as members of a joint Hindu family and that the suit was not maintainable until the plaintiffs obtained a succession certificate in respect of Bhuramals share. It was specifically pleaded by the defendants that, in these circumstances, Smt. Mangi was not a mere proforma defendant. In their replication, however, the plaintiffs stuck to their plea that they were the surviving members of the joint Hindu family and that no succession certificate was necessary. The learned Munsiff of Nawa reached the conclusion that the promissory note in question had been written individually in favour of Bhuramal and Chhogalal and that Bhuramals share devolved by succession and not by survivorship. He was therefore of the opinion that the suit was not maintainable without a succession certificate in respect of Bhuramals share. The learned Munsiff also held that the execution of the promissory note in question had not been proved and., for all these reasons, he dismissed the suit on April 13, 1963. The learned District Judge, on an appeal by the plaintiffs, also reached the conclusion that the promissory note had been executed individually in favour of Bhuramal and Chhoga Lal, but he held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving its execution. The learned Judge was however under the impression that Bhuramals daughter Smt. Mangi was also a plaintiff in the suit and he therefore ordered that a decree may be drawn up in favour of the plaintiffs on production of a succession certificate in respect of Bhuramals share. Against that judgment and decree of the learned District Judge dated September 14, 1963, the defendants have come up in this second appeal.

2. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the plaintiffs appeal before the District Judge was not properly constituted in as much as they left out Smt. Mangi altogether in their anxiety to show that she was not even a necessary party and that Bhuramals share had really devolved on them by survivorship. It has therefore been urged that the appeal was not maintainable because the trial Court had clearly reached the conclusion that the promissory note had been executed in favour of Bhuramal and Chhogalal in their individual capacity and Smt. Mangi being Bhuramals only heir was a necessary party as a co-promisee.

3. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents, has argued on the other hand, that in view of O.1, r. 13 C.P.C. the objection of the defendants appellants cannot be heard now when they did not raise it before the learned District Judge.

4. It is true that O.1, r.13 C.P.C. provides that all objections on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and that any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived but the rule does not apply in the case of the non-joinder of necessary parties. It would be sufficient to refer to a decision of this court in Chimna vs. Chunilal (1) in which it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document