Order
1. Heard Sh. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sh. B.S Gupta, counsel for the respondents.
2. Application for impleadment is allowed.
3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 22-10-2002 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 4141 of 2002, which affirmed the judgment and order of the first appellate court dated 30-9-2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2001 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the civil court dated 23-11-2001 in Civil Suit No. 423 RT of 1998/2000.
4. Admittedly, the respondent-plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking declaration of certain rights over the suit land admitting the factual position that the land belonged to the State of Haryana. The respondent-plaintiffs as well as the appellant-defendants were tenants in the said suit land.
5. Before the trial court, the appellant-defendants had raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the suit for non-joinder of parties. They had taken a stand that the suit for declaration of certain rights in the land belonging to the State of Haryana was not maintainable without impleading the State of Haryana.
6. The trial court framed a large number of issues including the issue of maintainability of the suit for non-joinder of the necessary parties. After considering the case in totality, the trial court recorded the finding on the said issue that the suit was not maintainable for want of necessary parties and the suit was dismissed.
7. The first appellate court reversed the finding on the said issue merely observing that the respondent-plaintiffs had not claimed any relief against the State, therefore, the State was not a necessary party and decreed the suit. The High Court, while considering the second appeal, affirmed the judgment and findings of the first appellate court and dismissed the second appeal preferred by the appellant-defendants.
8. In view of the provisions of Section 79 read with Order 27 Rule 1 and in view of the provisions of the proviso contained in Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if any relief is claimed against the State, the State is a necessary party. This view has been reiterated by this Court time and again, as is evident from the judgments in State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers' Syndicate Ltd. AIR 1964 SC 669; Ranjeet Mal v. Northern Railway (1977) 1 SCC 484; State of Kerala v. Southern Railway (1976) 4 SCC 265, AIR 1976 SC 2538; Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector (2003) 3 SCC 472 and Collector v. Bagathi Krishna Rao (2010) 6 SCC 427.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that as the respondent-plaintiffs sought declaration of certain rights on the suit land belonging to the State of Haryana, the State of Haryana was a necessary party. There is a compete fallacy in the finding recorded by the first appellate court that the respondent-plaintiffs had not sought any relief against the State. The first appellate court failed to appreciate that declaration in respect of certain rights over the land belonging to the State was the relief sought in the suit. Thus, in the absence of the owner of the land, no such declaration could be granted. Therefore, the State of Haryana was a necessary party. The suit, therefore, could not proceed for want of necessary parties.
10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 22-10-2002 passed in RSA No. 4141 of 2002 and the judgment and order of the first appellate court dated 30-9-2002 passed in CA No. 109 of 2001 are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 23-11-2001 passed in CS No. 423 RT of 1998/2000 is restored. No order as to costs.
11. Before parting with the case, it is clarified that if the suit between the parties is pending regarding the right of pre-emption before a competent court, this judgment shall have no bearing on the merit of the said case.