The appellate court should remand a case for inclusion of necessary parties, as non-joinder leads to improper dismissal of a suit regarding property declarations.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

This Court has issued notice against the respondent and the same has been served and unrepresented.

2. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court that the Trial Court only on the ground of non-arraying of brother as party to the suit, held that relief of declaration is sought and hence the said suit is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also formulated the point No.1 and answered the same as not correct and Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit. However, in respect of other two points are concerned, answered as negative that appellant cannot seek for the relief of declaration and it doesn’t require interference.

3. The counsel would vehemently contend that only the suit is dismissed on the ground that not made brother as a party to the proceedings. When the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that Trial Court committed an error in answering the point No.1 for consideration and Appellate Court ought not to have dismissed the appeal. The counsel would contend that the First Appellate Court ought to have remitted back the matter to the Trial Court to make the necessary party in the suit and dispose of the same on merits and no such opportunity is given and hence matter requires to be reconsidered and matter may be remitted back to the Trial Court.

4. Having heard the appellant’s counsel, the substantive question of law arises for the consideration of this Court are:

1) Whether the Appellate Court ought to have remanded the matter to Trial Court to make the brother of the appellant as party to the proceedings and remitted back the same with a direction to consider the matter afresh? 2) What Order?

5. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also on perusal of material on record, particularly the suit is filed for the relief of declaration. Admittedly, in the pleadings, the property belongs to one Rohitaksha, who is uncle of the plaintiff, who died unmarried and also his other brothers have also predeceased and when the plaintiff claims that he succeeded to the property and Trial Court made an observation that one of his brother is alive and he also become the legal heir and plaintiff is not the only legal heir of his father and hence an observation is made that without arraying the brother as party to the proceedings, he cannot be declared as owner and no doubt Trial Court also not directed the plaintiff to make him as party to the proceedings to consider the matter on merits and dismissed only on the ground that he has not been made as party and though defendant claims that he was an agreement holder and the same is also not substantiated. The Appellate Court also though formulated the point for consideration that is point No.1, answered the same as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error only on the ground that non-joinder of necessary parties ought not to have dismissed the same, but ought to have remitted back the matter to the Trial Court to make his brother as party to the proceedings but not done the same, but erroneously dismissed the appeal in coming to the conclusion that not entitled for the relief of declaration and possession and it doesn’t require any interference and the very approach of the Appellate Court is also erroneous and no doubt the plaintiff also not made his brother as party to the proceedings in the suit and ought to have sought permission before the Trial Court itself and not done the same and even in the Appellate Court also not made any attempt to seek for the relief of remanding the matter, but only in second ap