The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of impleading necessary parties in a suit, as well as the application of Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC in determining the effectiveness of a judgment and decree.

Heard Mr. Th. Ibotombi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.

2. This is a second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC challenging the impugned judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Manipur East dated 23.02.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2000, wherein, the learned District Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Manipur East in O.S. No. 11 of 1999/5 of 2003 and remanded the case to the same Court for fresh trial. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned District Judge reads as follows :

“6. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 23-3-2009 the appellants have preferred this appeal stating various grounds that the trial court mis-appreciated both law and facts of the suit and passed the impugned judgment and decree. It is also stated that the trial court did not discuss properly the evidence led by both the parties. It has presumed imaginary fact which is not pleaded in the plaint and the written statement. The trial court passed the impugned order by giving full emphasis only on the documents of the plaintiffs and their witnesses and the suit lands as properties left by Waikhom Bisheshore Singh. It is also stated that the impugned judgment and decree has been passed against the dead person who is the defendant No. 2 in the referred suit and it has also passed the said impugned order without discussing the necessary parties and without impleading the necessary party Thokchom Bidur Singh who is the father of the defendants No 1 to 8. It is also stated that the trial court passed the impugned and decree in favour of the plaintiffs without giving any good reason for all the issues and the same are baseless. Hence, the appellants pray to quash the impugned order dated 23-3-2009.

7. I have heard both the ld. Counsel of both the parties and gone through the relevant documents on record. Both the ld. Counsel of both the parties admit the fact that the husband of Maipakpi Devi who is the only daughter of late Chandra Singh is not impleaded as party in the suit in spite of the plea of the appellants/defendants. In a suit for partition and separate possession joint family property all the legal heirs should be arrayed as party in the suit, on admission, the suit can be dismissed as held in S.D. Ayyakamar v Somarendaram 2002 AIHC 1138 (1141) (Mad). Though no suit shall be defeated for non-joinder of parties there can be no doubt that if the parties who are not joined are not only proper but also necessary parties to the suit infirmity of the suit is barred to be fatal. Necessary parties are parties whose presence is essential and in whose absence no effective decree can at all be passed. They are parties who ought to have been joined. Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. In the present case the father of the defendants No. 1 to 8 Thokchom Bidur Singh has got the same right as those of the defendants No. 1 to 8 being the husband of late Maipakpi Devi. So, he is a necessary party and the judgment and decree cannot be decided properly accordingly to law. Thus, the court below has committed error while passing the said impugned judgment and decree.

However, it will not be reasonable to dismiss this case on merit without impleading the necessary party to the suit and without giving chance of being heard to be concerned parties in the suit.

Hence, it is ordered that the impugned judgment and decree dated 23-3-2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 11, Manipur East in the Original Suit No. 11 of 1999/5 of 2003 is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh trial.

Send back the lower court case record along with a copy of the order for information.

Announced in the open court.”

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal on the grounds as follows (the grounds reproduced here are in verbatim of what is given in the appeal):

“GROUNDS

(a) Because