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.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for appellants Mr. Ayush Aditya as well as learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati.

2. Instant second appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 04.09.2014 (Decree signed on 19.09.2015) passed by learned First Appellate Court, District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 67 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 19.09.2007 (decree signed on 29.09.2007) passed by learned Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 93 of 1991 has been affirmed. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff/appellants has been dismissed.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the plaintiffs have filed Title Suit No. 93 of 1991 for declaration of right, title of Schedule A land and for recovery of possession so far as Scheduled-B premises concerned after vacating the defendants there from. It is alleged that the Holding No. 113B in Kashidih Basti was allotted to one Kala Ram, father of the plaintiff no.1 and after his death, the said holding was re- allotted in the name of Musamat Ful Kumari widow of Kalaram and plaintiff no.1 namely Ram Narayan Sahu vide allotment dated 12.10.1963. The plaintiffs after taking permission from concerned authority have constructed a house over the said land. It is further alleged that the defendant was originally inducted on monthly tenant basis with respect to one room and shed within the house premises of the holding on the eastern side by Ful Kumari in or about December, 1989, but the defendants have forcibly occupied another room close to the south of the original room and the defendant have also let out the same to defendant no.2 and put a boundary wall and even not paying rent to the plaintiffs. It is also alleged that the plaintiff no.1 has gifted all his right tile and interest in favour of the plaintiff no.2 through registered gift deed dated 13.01.1991.

4. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that the suit premises is not tenanted property and ever let out to them by the plaintiff rather defendant is the owner of the eastern half portion of the suit premises as his ancestral property purchased in the name of Kala Ram who is full blood brother of defendant no.1 and during lifetime of their mother partition wall was made so that in future no dispute may arise between the parties. Therefore, the suit is liable to dismissed and the defendants cannot be evicted from the suit property.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court has settled following issues for adjudication:-

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and the reliefs sought for ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have valid cause of action to bring the suit?

(iii) Whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs have any right, title and interest in the suit property as described in Schedule A and B of the plaint?

(v) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree as claimed?

(vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief or reliefs?

6. The learned trial court has taken issue no.(iii) as primary issue and after considering the evidences adduced by the parties held that there is no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, hence this issue is accordingly decided against the plaintif