9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Suit for declaration of rights over state land, maintainability for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Summary: The appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court affirming the First Appellate Court's decision, which had reversed the Trial Court's decree due to non-joinder of necessary parties. The Respondents sought declaration of rights over state land, with both parties being tenants. The Trial Court dismissed the suit citing non-maintainability for lack of necessary parties, while the First Appellate Court decreed the suit without impleading the State of Haryana. The High Court upheld the First Appellate Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that as per Section 79 and Order 27, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, if any relief is claimed against the State, the State is a necessary party. Previous judgments reiterated this principle. Since the suit sought declaration of rights over state land, the State of Haryana was a necessary party. The Court found an error in the First Appellate Court's reasoning that no relief was claimed against the State, as the declaration of rights over state land inherently involved the State. Therefore, the suit could not proceed without the State being a party. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court, and restoring the Trial Court's decree. No costs were awarded, and it was clarified that this judgment would not impact any pending pre-emption case between the parties.
|
