Jharkhand High Court
Ram Narayan Sahu @ Narayan Sahu vs Smt. Soni Bai on 25 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:20606
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 623 of 2015
[Against the Judgment and decree dated 04.09.2015 (decree signed
on 19.09.2015), passed by learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No.67 of 2007]
1. Ram Narayan Sahu @ Narayan Sahu, S/o Late Mahabir Ram
Sahu @ Jugnu.
2. Bhanu Kumari, D/o Mahabir Ram Sahu @ Jugnu
Both Resident of 113-B, Line No. 5, Kasidih, P.O. & P.S.
Sakchi, Jamshedpur.
3. Geeta Bai, W/o Mangta Sahu, D/o Late Mahabir Ram Sahu,
R/o Gurudwara Basti, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, P.O. + P.S. Sakchi,
District- East Singhbhum.
4. Smt. Tanwarin Bai, W/o Late Mahabir Ram Sahu, Resident of
113-B, Line No.5, Kasidih, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur.
.... Appellants/Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Smt. Soni Bai, W/o Late Jugnoo.
2. Gopal.
3. Bina Devi D/o of Late Govinda, R/o 113 B Line No.5,
Kasidih, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur.
4. Baby, D/o Late Jugnoo.
5. Sital Prasad, S/o Late Mahabir Ram Sahu @ Jugnu, R/o
Kadma, P.O. + P.S. Kadma, Jamshedpur, District- East
Singhbhum. .... Respondents/Defendants
6. Smt. Malti Bai, D/o Mahabir Ram Sahu, W/o Arjun Ram
Sahu, R/o Behind Oxegon Colony, Burmamines, P.O. + P.S.
Burmamines, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum.
.... Proforma Respondent/ Proforma Defendant
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, Adv.
---------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on: 08/07/2025 Pronounced on 25 /07/2025 Heard learned counsel for appellants Mr. Ayush Aditya as well as learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati.
Second Appeal No. 623 of 2015 Page | 1
2025:JHHC:20606
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 Second Appeal No. 623 of 2015 Page | 2 2025:JHHC:20606 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 plaintiff.
Second Appeal No. 623 of 2015 Page | 3
2025:JHHC:20606
7. Issue No.(iv) was also decided against the plaintiffs and learned trial court held plaintiffs have no any title in the property as described in Schedule-A and B of the plaint.
8. While deciding issue no.(v), it was observed that the suit property was allotted by Exhibit-I vide allotment letter no. TAL-8762/63 dated 12.10.1963 to Mahavir Ram Sahu as monthly tenant under the TISCO Limited. But the TISCO Limited who appears to be necessary party has not been arrayed as defendant in this suit. In absence of TISCO Limited, title of the suit property cannot be completely and effectively be adjudicated. Therefore, suit is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
9. Issue Nos. (i) and (vi) were taken together and it was held that the relief as claimed for right title interest of the suit premises (holding) is not acceptable as the suit is subject matter of allotment and re- allotment by the TISCO wherein transfer by way of gift is completely prohibited. Accordingly, issue nos.1 and 6 were also decided against the plaintiffs.
10. Lastly issue nos. (ii) and (vii) taken together for adjudication and in view of findings recorded by the learned trial court on aforesaid main issues, the issue nos. (ii) and (vii) were also decided against the plaintiffs and the suit was dismissed on contest without cost.
11. Plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 67 of 2007 before the Court of District Judge, Jamshedpur which was also decided on 04.09.2015. The appellate court has formulated following points for determination :-
(i) ा िट ो कंपनी ारा आवंिटत भूिम पर बनाये Super Structure भवन का ािम , एवं िहतों का कोई अनुतोष वादी (1) एवं (2) िकसी कार से Second Appeal No. 623 of 2015 Page | 4 2025:JHHC:20606 ा करने के अिधकारी है ?
(ii) ा ितवादीगणों को िववािदत संपि अनुसूिच B के क े को वादीगण बेदखल कराने के अिधकारी है ?
(iii) ा उ वाद म िट ो एवं झारखंड रा सरकार एक आव क प कार
होने से प कार बनाया जाना आव क है ?
(iv) ा वादी को कोई वादकारण उ आ?
12. The learned appellate court after considering the arguments of the parties and evidence available on record has decided all the aforesaid points against the appellants/plaintiffs and confirmed the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the learned trial court.
13. This second appeal was admitted on following question of law vide order dated 02.03.2020:-
(i) "Whether the judgment of the appellate court below is bad as only on the basis of non-joinder of parties has dismissed the appeal and has not given liberty to the appellants for filing fresh suit after impleading all the parties to the suit which is required under Order I Rule 9 C.P.C. or not?"
14. Learned counsel for the appellants pressing the aforesaid substantial questions of law has submitted that non-joinder of necessary parties vitiates the whole trial in as much as the lis between the parties cannot be effectively decided in absence of the necessary party. Therefore, the learned trial court has to decide the issue no.(V) barred by non-joinder of necessary party as preliminary issue under Order XIV of CPC besides entering into merits of the case. The learned appellate court has also to remand the case for fresh decision after providing opportunity to the appellants for impleading the necessary parties in the suit.
Second Appeal No. 623 of 2015 Page | 5
2025:JHHC:20606
Therefore, both the courts below have committed serious illegality in not providing opportunity to the appellant to take proper steps for impleading the necessary parties to get the suit adjudicated on merits. Therefore, judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Pratima Sinhas versus Shashi Kumar Sinhas (2004)12 SCC 599 and Kalyan Kumar Bera versus Milan Kumar Khutia and Ors. 2023 of Calcutta High Court reported in 2023 1 CCC 93.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents refuting the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff/appellants has been decided on merits on other vital issues including non-joinder of necessary party, which have attained finality, therefore, at this stage merely on the ground of issue of non-joinder of the parties, plaintiffs should not be permitted to get remand of the case for de novo trial. Therefore, this appeal is fit to be dismissed.
17. I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court as well as first appellate court. The very crucial point is that both the courts below have recorded findings that the suit is barred by non-joinder of the necessary parties. The effect of non-joinder of the necessary parties has been enunciated in Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under:-
Section 99 - No decree to be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction.
"no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor Second Appeal No. 623 of 2015 Page | 6 2025:JHHC:20606 shall any case be remanded in appeal on account of any misjoinder or non-joinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any proceeding in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court."
[Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party]
18. The above provision explicitly provides that non-joinder of the necessary parties by defendant is a ground to reverse or substantially vary a decree in appeal.
19. Apart from above provision Rules 3, 9 and 13 of Order I are also relevant provisions which should be taken into consideration besides Section 99 of the Code". Rule 3 lays down as to who are to be joined as defendants. Rule 9 states that no suits shall be defeated by reasons of misjoinder or non-joinder of the parties and further speaks that the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards rights and interests of the parties actually before it. The general rule of Procedure in Rule 9 is subject to the proviso thereto which speaks that such general rules shall not apply to non-joinder of a necessary party. So it is obvious that non-joinder of necessary party stands on a different footing and is a ground to dismiss the suit. Rule 13 mandates that: "all objection on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of the parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen and any such objections not so taken shall deem to have Second Appeal No. 623 of 2015 Page | 7 2025:JHHC:20606 been weighed. But the same is not true in respect of objection as regards to non-joinder of necessary parties which is a question of law which can be raised at the appellate stage also.
20. In the case of Kalyan Kumar Bera versus Milan Kumar Kutia & Ors.(Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was held that at Para-17 as under:-
"The next question is whether Order 41, Rule 23 or Rule 23A would be applicable in the given case. Although the learned court below has held that the plaintiff has right tile and interest in the suit property and defendants have no right title and interest in the suit property and they have no locus standi to challenge the deed of plaintiff, but ultimately, the suit has been dismissed on the ground that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Considering the peculiarity of the judgment impugned, we are of the view that proper course would be Order 41, Rule 23 of the C.P.C. We however, think that the direction for de novo trial would not be proper."
21. In the instant appeal also the TISCO and The State of Jharkhand are necessary party in absence of whom no effective judgment and decree can be passed. The learned trial court might have taken the issue no.V regarding non-joinder of necessary party as preliminary issue to be disposed of before the commencement of further trial of the case, but it proceeded to decide all the issues. The appellate court has also committed same error of law. Therefore, in view of aforesaid provisions of law, it appears necessary in the ends of justice to remand the suit for de novo trial after affording reasonable opportunity to the Second Appeal No. 623 of 2015 Page | 8 2025:JHHC:20606 plaintiffs/appellants to add the necessary parties as observed by the trial court and the first appellate court. If such opportunity is not availed by the plaintiff/appellant, the learned court shall have liberty to dismiss the suit. It is clarified that evidence recorded during trial shall, subject to all just exceptions be evidence during the trial after remand. The learned trial court after impleadment of necessary parties shall be at liberty to settle additional issues as per pleadings of the parties and take further evidence as may be necessary.
22. In view of above discussion and reasons, impugned judgment and decree passed by courts below is hereby set aside. The Title Suit No.93 of 1991 is restored to its original number before the concerned trial court and learned trial court is directed to proceed further for trial as per above observations. The trial court is further directed to try the suit as expeditiously as possible and conclude the same preferably within nine months from appearance of the newly impleaded parties.
23. In view of above, this appeal is allowed.
24. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of.
25. Let the copy of this judgment along with record of trial court be sent back to concerned trial court for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 25 /07 /2025
Amar/- N.A.F.R.
Second Appeal No. 623 of 2015 Page | 9