Case Note & Summary
The second appeal before the Bombay High Court arose from a suit for declaration and possession of agricultural lands filed by the original plaintiff against multiple defendants who allegedly usurped the properties after the death of the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff, being the only legal heir, claimed that defendants had absolutely no concern with the suit properties and had fraudulently obtained mutation entries to show ownership. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff on merits, holding that the mutation entries were illegal and fraudulent and that defendants were strangers, but dismissed the suit entirely on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the Land Development Bank and other persons whose names appeared in the fraudulent mutation entries. The lower appellate court partly decreed the suit for some lands but dismissed claims for others on the same non-joinder ground, relying on provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 regarding the bank's statutory first charge. The plaintiff then filed the present second appeal, contending that the lower courts erred in holding that persons without any right, title or interest were necessary parties and that the bank's charge did not require its impleadment in a simple possession suit. The High Court, after examining the records, noted the concurrent findings that the mutation entries were fraudulent, defendants were rank strangers, and the plaintiff and her mother were the exclusive owners. Despite these findings, the lower appellate court held that other persons named in those very entries were necessary parties. The High Court held that once mutation entries are found to be fraudulent and void, they confer no rights upon the persons named therein, and such persons are not necessary parties. Regarding the bank, the court held that sections 47, 48 and 118(5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 do not compel the bank's impleadment in a suit for possession by the true owner absent any challenge to the bank's mortgage or security. The High Court concluded that the findings on non-joinder were illegal and perverse, and since the plaintiff had proved exclusive title and defendants failed to prove any right or adverse possession, the suit was liable to be decreed in its entirety. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments to the extent they dismissed the suit, and decreed the entire suit in favor of the appellant-plaintiff, granting possession of all suit lands.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties - Persons Named in Fraudulent Mutation Entries Have No Right, Title or Interest and Are Not Necessary Parties - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I Rule 9 - The courts below concurrently found that mutation entries 1429 and 1430 were illegally and fraudulently procured and defendants were rank strangers; however, the lower appellate court dismissed part of the suit for non-joinder of other persons named in those entries. Held, that once mutation entries are found to be fraudulent, they confer no rights, and such persons are not necessary parties; suit cannot be defeated for their non-joinder. (Paras 15(i), 16) B) Cooperative Societies - Land Development Bank as Necessary Party - Bank Not Required to Be Impleaded in Suit for Possession by Owner - Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Sections 47, 48, 118(5) - The lower appellate court relied on the first charge of the Land Development Bank under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act to hold it a necessary party. Held, that in a suit for possession by the owner who is not seeking redemption or challenging the bank's charge, the bank is not a necessary party; its statutory charge does not transform it into a necessary party in such proceedings. (Paras 15(ii), 16) C) Civil Procedure - Decree in Suit for Possession - Suit Decreed in Entirety When Title Proved and All Defenses Fail - The High Court, finding that the plaintiff had proved exclusive title, defendants were strangers, mutation entries fraudulent, and no necessary parties omitted, decreed the suit in its entirety, setting aside the lower courts' judgments. (Paras 15(iii), 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for possession based on title can be dismissed for non-joinder of persons whose names appear in mutation entries that have been concurrently held to be illegal and fraudulent, and whether the Land Development Bank is a necessary party under Sections 47, 48, and 118(5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Final Decision
Second Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of lower appellate court set aside to the extent it dismissed part of the suit. Entire suit decreed in favor of the appellant-plaintiff, granting possession of all suit lands. Lower courts' findings on non-joinder reversed.
Law Points
- mutation entries do not confer title
- fraudulent mutation entries confer no rights
- persons named in illegal mutation entries are not necessary parties
- land development bank not necessary party in possession suit under Sections 47
- 48
- 118(5) Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- non-joinder of parties without right
- title or interest does not bar suit
