Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Introduction

The leading case, Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786, beholds the whole law on the topic.

• Key Takeaways from this Decision, Udit Narain
• Necessary Party
  • A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively.
  • The parties whose rights are directly affected are the necessary parties.
  • A tribunal exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot decide against the rights of one person without giving him a hearing or an opportunity to present his case in the manner known to law.
  • If the provisions of a particular statute or rules made thereunder do not provide for it, principles of natural justice demand it.
  • Any order that may be issued behind the back of such a party can be ignored by the said party.
  • Any such order made without hearing the affected parties would be void.
• Proper Party
  • A proper party is one whose presence is not necessary for making an effective order; but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding, or whose presence may facilitate the settling of all the questions that may be involved in the controversy.
  • The question of making such a person as a party to a writ proceeding depends upon the judicial discretion of the High Court in the circumstances of each case.
  • Either one of the parties to the proceeding may apply for the impleading of such a party or such a party may suo motu approach the court for being impleaded therein.

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar

In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar AIR 1963 SC 786 our Apex Court held, in para 7 and 9, as under:

• “7. To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled: it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively’; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.”   
• “A tribunal, therefore, exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot decide against the rights of one party without giving him a hearing or an opportunity to represent his case in the manner known to law. If the provisions of a particular statute or rules made thereunder do not provide for it, principles of natural justice demand it. Any such order made without hearing the affected parties would be void.
• 9. The next question is whether the parties whose rights are directly affected are the necessary parties to a writ petition to quash the order of a tribunal. As we have seen, a tribunal or authority performs a judicial or quasi- judicial act after hearing parties. Its order affects the right or rights of one or the other of the parties before it. In a writ of certiorari, the defeated party seeks for the quashing of the order issued by the tribunal in favour of the successful party. How can the High Court vacate the said order without the successful party being before it? Without the presence of the successful party the High Court cannot issue a substantial order affecting his right. Any order that may be issued behind the back of such a party can be ignored by I the said party, with the result that the tribunal’s order would be quashed but the right vested in that party by the wrong order of the tribunal would continue to be effective. Such a party, therefore, is a necessary party and a petition filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari without making him a party or without impleading him subsequently, if allowed by the court, would certainly be incompetent. A party whose interests are directly affected is, therefore, a necessary party. In addition, there may be parties who may be described as proper parties, that is parties whose presence is not necessary for making an effective order but whose presence may facilitate the settling of all the questions that may be involved in the controversy. The question of making such a person as a party to a writ proceeding depends upon the judicial discretion of the High Court in the circumstances of each case. Either one of the parties to the proceeding may apply for the impleading of such a party or such a party may suo motu approach the court for being impleaded therein.”

Following are the recent Supreme Court Judgments that followed Udit Narain Singh

• (1) Vishal Ashok Thorat v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate, 2019 AIR SC 3616
• (2) Swapna Mohanty v. State of Odisha, 2018 17 SCC 621
• (3) Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das, 2018 AIR SC 682
• (4) Poonam v. State of U. P. , 2016 2 SCC 779
• (5) Asstt. G.M State Bank of India v. Radhey Shyam Pandey, 2015 (3) SCALE 39
• (6) Sh Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji VS State of Gujarat, 2015 AIR SC 3623
• (7) Census Commissioner v. R. Krishnamurthy, 2015 2 SCC 796
• (8) H. C. Kulwant Singh v. H. C. Daya Ram, 2014 AIR SC 3083,
• (9) Ranjan Kumar v. State Of Bihar, 2014 16 SCC 187
• (10) State of Rajasthan v. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal, (2014) 1 SCC 144
• (11) Manohar v . State of Maharashtra, 13 Dec 2012
• (12) Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India, (2012) 7 SCC 610
• (13) Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma, AIR 2011 SC 428
• (14) State of Assam v. Union of India, 30 Sep 2010
• (15) Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. , (2010) 10 SCC 744
• (16) Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204       
• (17) JS Yadav v. State of UP (2011) 6 SCC 570
• (18) T. Vijendradas v. M. Subramanian , 09 Oct 2007
• (19) Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Mangt. Comte., (2006) 8 SCC 487
• (20) Assam Small Scale Ind. Dev. Corp. v. J. D. Pharmaceuticals, 2005 (13) SCC 19

Non-joinder of a Party – Relevant Provision of CPC

Section 99 of the CPC reads as under:

• 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 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 proceedings 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.

Rule 9 of Order I CPC reads as under:

• 9. Misjoinder and nonjoinder: No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it:
  Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to nonjoinder of a necessary party.

Non-joinder or misjoinder of Parties – Objection

• 13. Objections as to non-joinder or misjoinder.
  All objections on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of 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 objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived.

Necessary Party – for Effectually and Completely settle the questions

In Razia Begum vs. Anwar Begum,  AIR 1958 SC 886, our Apex Court observed as under:

• “The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights.” Quoted in: Poonam VS State of UP, 2016-2 SCC 779

Court has Discretion to add a Necessary Party or Proper Party

Order I Rule 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.

• .(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted thought a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.
• (2) Court may strike out or add parties– The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
• (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.

In Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417, it is held  as under:  

• “The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party.
• A ‘necessary party‘ is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a ‘necessary party’ is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.
• A ‘proper party‘ is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made.
• If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.”

It is pointed out in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.   v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. that the Apex Court held in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, 2005 (6) SCC 733, that a purchaser of the suit property subsequent to the suit agreement would be a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased it with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims a title adverse to that of the defendant-vendor will not be a necessary party. If the owner of a tenanted property enters into an agreement for sale of such property without physical possession, in a suit for specific performance by the purchaser, the tenant would not be a necessary party.

No Pleading – who are necessary parties; suit cannot be dismissed

In Laxmishankar Harishankar Bhatt v. Yashram Vasta, AIR 1993 SC 1587, it was observed that the suit for recovery of possession-plaintiff purchaser claiming to have acquired entire ownership of suit property and the plea by defendant-tenant that suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of co-owners. No averments, however, in written statement as to who are other co-owners and what rights they claim the suit cannot be dismissed for non-joinder on such vague plea. (Referred to (1991) 4 SCC 17, AIR 1989 SC 758, AIR 1977 SC 1599, AIR 1976 SC 2335, AIR 1973 Gujarat 131 (FB).

In Meghavaranam v. Md. Mohideen Sahib, AIR 1936 Mad. 782, Wadsworth, J., also held that if the defendants wish to object to a suit on the ground of non-joinder of parties, it is incumbent upon them to state who are the parties. (Referred to in : Durvasula Dakshina Murthy v. Vajjala Vijaya Kumari, 2008 1 AndLD 347)

Defendant Pleaded the land belonged to Municipal Council. It became a necessary party

In Subbaraya v. Seetha Ramaswami, AIR 1933 Mad. 664, Walsh, 1., the learned Judge of the Madras High Court, observed that if a person has a right to defend, it is the same thing as saying that he is a necessary defendant, for it is not within the discretion of the Court to say whether it will add him or not. Plaintiff brought a suit to eject the defendant from a site and to remove a pial erected by him thereon. The plea of the defendant was that the land belonged to the Municipal Council, that he put up a pial with its permission and that the Municipal Council was a necessary party to the suit. The trial Court held that, as plaintiff claimed the suit property as his, it was unnecessary to implead the Municipality on the contention of the defendant, and it was held that the Municipality was a necessary party to the suit and not having been made one, in spite of objection taken from the staI1, the suit must be dismissed.

Non-Joinder Of A Necessary Party Cannot, By Itself, Be A Ground For Dismissing

In Mt. Zabaishi Begam v. Naziruddin Khan, AIR 1935 All. 110, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court observed that the non-joinder of a necessary party cannot, by itself, be a ground for dismissing the suit, and the Court is bound to adjudicate on the rights of the parties actually before it. A Court will refrain from passing a decree which would be ineffective and infructuous and the reason for this rule is obvious. It would be idle for a Court to pass a decree which would be of no practical utility to the plaintiff, and be a waste paper in the sense that the relief that it purports to grant to the plaintiff cannot be vouchsafed to him because of the objection of some person who is not bound by that decree. But this rule has no application to cases in which, notwithstanding the fact that some of the persons interested in the subject-matter of the suit are not parties to the suit, the Court is in a position to pass a decree that is capable of execution and cannot be rendered nugatory at the instance of persons not made parties to the suit. . (Referred to in : Durvasula Dakshina Murthy v. Vajjala Vijaya Kumari, 2008 1 AndLD 347)

Plea As To Non Joinder Not Allowed To Be Raised At Later Point Of Time

In Ramachandran v. Valliammal, 1992 (1) MLJ 188, Srinivasan, J., the learned Judge of Madras High Court, observed that where the defendant has not raised a specific plea as to existence of co-owners at the time of filing suit and raising the said question at later point of time should not be allowed.

Necessary Party – Persons Likely to be Affected must be parties

In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar AIR 1963 SC 786

• “35. ……….  It is well-settled principle consistent with natural justice that if some persons are likely to be affected on account of setting aside a decision enuring to their benefit, the Court should not embark upon the consideration and the correctness of such decision in the absence of such persons.” (Quoted in Poonam VS State of U. P. , 2016 2 SCC 779; State of Assam v. Union of India [2010] 12 S.C.R. 413)

The Court of Appeal of California in California C.C. Corp. v. Superior Court, (1932) 122 Cal.App. 404 it is held as under:

• “In Powell v. People (1905), 214 Ill. 475 [105 Am. St. Rep. 117, 2 Ann. Cas. 551, 73 N.E. 795], it is directly held that mandamus will not lie where it appears upon the face of the petition or the face of the record that a necessary party, or a party whose interests are directly affected has been omitted, the court of its own motion will decline to issue the writ. There, as here, the want of the necessary party appeared upon the record, and it was there held that a plea of such want of the necessary party was not necessary to bring the fact to the attention of the court.”  

In Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014-16 SCC 187, it is held as under:

• 4. On a perusal of the orders impugned, we find that only 40 persons were made respondents before the High Court and hardly a few appointees filed applications for intervention. It is well settled in law that no adverse order can be passed against persons who were not made parties to the litigation.

The court referred the following decisions:

• Prabodh Verma and others v. State of UP, (1984) 4 SCC 251;
• Indu Shekhar Singh and others v. State of UP, (2006) 8 SCC 129;  
• Km. Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724;
• Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 1 SCC 768; 
• Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204, referred to – Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786, Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153, Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706, Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5;
• State of Rajasthan v. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal, (2014) 1 SCC 144;
• Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India, (2012) 7 SCC 610;    
• J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 570;      
• Union of India v. S. Vinod Kumar,  AIR 2008 SC 5;
• Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127;
• Madan Lal v. State of J & K, (1995) 3 SCC 486;      
• Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 (Supp) SCC 285.

Easement – owners of properties who obstruct alone are necessary parties

If easement right is claimed over a way that passes through various (servient) properties, the owners of properties who obstruct the way alone are necessary parties; and those who do not raise any obstruction are not necessary parties.

• Madan Mohan Chakravarthy v. Sashi Bhusan, AIR 1915 Cal 403  (19 Cal WN 1211);
• Lal Mohammad Biswas v. Emajuddin Biswas, AIR 1964 Cal 548;
• Varkey Joseph v. Mathai Kuriakose, (1992) 2 Ker LJ 135; (1992) 2 Ker LT 169.

Owners Of Other Servient Fields Are Not Necessary Parties

In K.Palaniappa Moopan v. Angammal, (1967) I M.L.J. 177, it was held as under:  

• “It may be that the owners of other fields over which the channel flows are proper parties, but certainly they are not necessary parties. Their non- joinder cannot be fatal to the suit. There are several servient tenements over which the channel passes, but the defendants alone have obstructed according to the plaintiffs. There has been no obstruction from the State or from the owner of field S.No.15 of the exercise of the right claimed by the plaintiffs. I am unable to appreciate the contention that the plaintiffs cannot have effectual relief in their absence. If any of them should interfere with the mamool flow of water or at any subsequent period, that would give a fresh cause of action to the plaintiffs and a cause of action to the defendants also if they are inconvenienced and injured. In my view, it would be unreasonable to compel the plaintiffs to implead the owners of the servient lands all along the course of the channel whether they had any cause of action against them or not and even though there was no obstruction to or denial of the plaintiffs right by these persons. “

All persons interested in Easement are not Necessary Parties

In S. Narain Bera v. Chandra Bera, AIR 1924 Cal. 1050, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court observed that all persons interested in the right of easement are not necessary parties to the suit where the cause of action on the pleadings is against those persons only who are alleged to have interfered with the plaintiffs right. The persons who have the right of easement cannot be held to be necessary parties so long as their right is not interfered with. In order to determine whether a suit is maintainable and whether certain parties are necessary parties or not, it is necessary to ascertain the nature of the plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint. . (Referred to in : Durvasula Dakshina Murthy v. Vajjala Vijaya Kumari, 2008 1 AndLD 347)

In Mukherjj v. Kalipada Bhattacharji, A. I. R. 1936 Cal. 534, it was held that every owner of servient tenement denying the plaintiffs right and every person obstructing the use of the right were necessary parties. (Referred to in: Ram Singh Sharma v. Parmod Kumari, 1992-102 PujLR 396)

Not Necessary To Add Who Are Not Parties To Obstruction

Justice B.K.Mukherjea in Kedaruddin Ahamad v. Sm. Samsur Mata, (41 Cal.WN 769) took the view that it was not necessary to add as defendants those persons who are not parties to the act of obstruction complained of.

In Varkey Joseph v. Mathai Kuriakose, 1992-2 KerLJ 135; 1992-2 KerLT 169, it is held as under:

• “The said decision (Kedaruddin Ahamad v. Sm. Samsur Mata) also took note of the decision reported in Surja Narain V. Chandra Bera (AIR 1924 Cal.1050) to hold that the absence of other servient owner is in no way fatal to the plaintiffs suit complaining of obstruction by a servient land owner. These authorities were considered elaborately by his Lordship P.B. Mukharji, J. in the decision reported in Lal Mohd. v. Emajuddin (AIR 1964 Cal.548). After noticing the conflict of authorities the learned judge preferred to follow the view expressed in the decision reported in 19 Cal.WN 1211 which was affirmed by a Division Bench of which Chief Justice Jenkins himself was a party and that of B.K. Mukherjea, J. in the decisions reported in 41 Cal WN. 769. His Lordship Justice P.B. Mukharji observed:
• “The actual complaint in this case against the defendants is that they put two obstructions at two places on the road over which a right of way was claimed by the plaintiffs. The real nature of the suit is for removal of those obstructions. The persons who obstruct in my judgment are the only proper and necessary persons to be joined as defendants in such a suit, Hundred and thousand of villagers who have done nothing to obstruct such a way are neither necessary nor proper parties.
• If that were so then a single obstruction by a single villager will make it necessary to make the whole village,. i.e., all the villagers, parties. In that view a person who suffers has to join all other numerous persons as defendants although they have done nothing and there is no cause of action or grievance against them. I do not think that is the law….”
• Read in the light of 0.1 R.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the practical considerations put forward by Mr. Justice P.B. Mukharji I respectfully agree with the view taken by Mr. Justice P.B. Mukharji in the decision reported in AIR 1964 Cal.548.”

Owner Of The Servient Tenement – Not Necessarily a Party

In Varkey Joseph v. Mathai Kuriakose, 1992-2 KerLJ 135; 1992 2 KerLT 169, it is observed as under:

• In Thayappan v. Kunhahammed (S.A, No.629 of 1986) considered this question in the light of the decision reported in AIR 1964 Cal. 548 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Udti Narain Singh Malpharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar (1963(1) SCR 676) and has held as follows:
• “…The learned counsel for the appellant raised a contention that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as the owner of the servient tenement is not made a party to the suit and therefore it is contended that no effective decree for declaration could be passed in this case and the lower appellate court erred in reversing the findings of the trial court. The respondent’s counsel contended that the owner of the servient tenement is not a necessary party and it is pointed out that the appellant has not raised this contention in the written statement. Who is a ‘necessary party’ has been explained by the Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar (1963-1 SCR 676) wherein it was held,
• “Necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding”.
• It is true that if the owner of the servient tenement is a necessary party and whose presence is necessary for passing an effective decree, he is to be impleaded as a party and the non-joinder of such a party may entail the dismissal of the case. I do not think that the owner of the servient tenement is a necessary party in all cases where a declaration of easement right is claimed by the plaintiff. In the present case the real dispute is between the plaintiff and the defendant. Defendant is the owner of an adjacent property and according to the plaintiff he is causing obstruction to the pathway. The plaintiff has no case that the owner of the servient tenement caused any obstruction to the use of the pathway. Even if the court passed a declaration of his easement right in respect of the plaint schedule pathway it would bind only the defendant, who allegedly caused the obstruction. Therefore, the owner of the servient tenement is not a necessary party in all suits for declaration of easement right. An effective decree can be passed even without impleading the owner of the servient tenement as a party to the suit,…”

Necessary Party – Person Likely to Suffer has to be Impleaded

Census Commissioner v. R. Krishnamurthy, 2015-2 SCC 796, it is observed as under:

• 19. As we evince from the sequence of events, the High Court in the earlier judgment had issued the direction relating to carrying of census in a particular manner by adding certain facets though the lis was absolutely different. The appellant, the real aggrieved party, was not arrayed as a party-respondent. The issue was squarely raised in the subsequent writ petition where the Census Commissioner was a party and the earlier order was repeated. There can be no shadow of doubt that earlier order is not binding on the appellant as he was not a party to the said lis. This view of ours gets fructified by the decision in
• H.C. Kulwant Singh v. H.C. Daya Ram JT 2014 (8) SC 305 wherein this Court,
  • after referring to the judgments in
    • Khetrabasi Biswal v. Ajaya Kumar Baral, (2004) 1 SCC 317
    • UditNarain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786
    • Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC 251 and
    • Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B. (2009) 1 SCC 768
  • has ruled thus:      
•  ‘….. if a person who is likely to suffer from the order of the court and has not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice’.”

Necessary parties in suit on Partial destruction of Stair Case and its Removal

Smt. Subhra Sinha Roy v. Iman Kalyan Dey, (2011) 2 CalHN 959, considered it and stated as under:

• “In CWN (19) 1211 (Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J., Justice D. Chatterjee Madan Mohan Chakravarty v. Sashi Bhusan Mukherji, (1915) 31 Ind. Cas. 549 : 19 C.W.N. 1211) it is held, inter alia, that a dominant owner has no cause of action against servant owners who have neither caused obstruction nor raised any objection to the exercise of his right of easement. In a suit for declaration of his right of way he is not bound to make parties any servant owners other than those who have so obstructed or challenged his right. The said case relates to a suit for declaration of right of way, for restoration of the path to its former condition and for perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed against which appeal was preferred with the contention that the suit ought to have failed as the owners of all the servant tenements over which the way is claimed have not been made parties to the suit. The instant case relates to removal of partial obstruction from the existing pathway in terms of a compromise decree which has been waived or relinquished. There is no denial of the fact that the said staircase is now in occupation of the tenants inducted by co-sharers. If such a staircase is to be removed affecting the rights of all the co-owners, they must be treated as necessary party and in such case in absence of all the co-owners no effective decree can be passed. From this point of view the learned Trial Court as well as the Hon”ble Division Bench has not committed any error apparent on the face of record which may be reviewed and the ratio in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Claim of possessory right over Govt. land: State need not be a party

In Vavvakkavu Muslim Thaikkavupally v. Narayanan Purushan, ILR 1992-1 Ker 221; 1991-2 KLJ 526; 1991-2 KLT 477, it was held as under:

• “Regarding the first question it is clear from the pleadings and evidence in the case that the plaintiffs have not claimed either possession of the plaint B schedule property or even an easement right over it as against the State. The gist of their claim in the plaint is that as the owners of the property abutting plaint B schedule property they are using the same as a passage to have access from their residential house in plaint B schedule property to N.H. 47. Of course they have also stated that they have no other pathway to have access to any public road. However, they have not even alleged and proved any of the ingredients to establish an easement right of way through the plaint B schedule property. Learned counsel for the respondents has also not advanced any such contention before me. Probably being land kept for the purpose of N.H. 47 State has also not chosen to obstruct the plaintiffs in the matter of using plaint B schedule property as a passage so far. In these circumstances, I do not think that it was necessary for the plaintiffs to have impleaded the State as a party to the suit. In a more or less similar case, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the decision reported in Girish Chandra v. Nagendranath (AIR 1978 Orissa 211) has held that the owner of land is not a necessary party to the suit so long as none of the parties to the suit have claimed any right specifically against the owner. In the said decision, the Division Bench has actually referred to two earlier decisions of the Calcutta High Court reported in Sabirer Ma v. Behari Mohan Lai (AIR 1928 Cal. 23) and in Kedaruddin v. Asrafali (AIR 1937 Cal. 355) in support of thier view. In AchutKalsai v. MadhuKalsai (1972) 38 Cut.LT 105) the Orissa High Court in a more or less similar case has held thus:
• “In this case there is no allegation of any resistance from the State of Orissa to the flow of Avatar over the Government land intervening between the plaintiffs premises and the channel by the side of the village road. The entire obstruction came from the defendants and the plaintiffs really aggrieved by the defendants action. There may be cases where the owner of the servant tenement would not resist and the resistance would come from quite a different quarter. In such cases the Owner of the servant tenement would certainly not be required to be before the Court as a necessary party to the litigation. The present case seems to be one of that type and the State of Orissa which is the owner of the intervening plot not being before the Court would not affect the suit in any manner”.
• I am in agreement with the view expressed in the above decisions and would hold that the State is not a necessary party to the suit and the suit is not liable to be dismissed on that ground.”

In Ramachandran v. Omanakuttan, 2021-4 KLJ 204, it is held as under:

• “In Vavvakkavu Muslim Thaikkavupally v. Narayanan Purushan, 1991 (2) KLT 477, Packiyam Ammal v. Pattu Ammal, 1999 KHC 3552, and Appukuttan Chettiyar v. Lathikadevi Amma, 2005 (1) KLT 260, it was held that the possessory right can be claimed as between persons who assert rival claims over Government land and that in such actions the State need not be a party subject to the rider that the Government will not be bound by any such decrees.
• Such being the legal position, the view of the first appellate court that the Government ought to have been made a party to the suit is untenable particularly in view of the decisions in Philip’s case (supra), Kuttan Narayanan v. Thomman Mathai, 1966 KLT 1, Rev.Fr.K.C.Alexander v. N.S.S. Ltd., 1966 KLT 333,  Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769, Pathukutty v. Aisakutty, 2014 (2) KHC 212, and Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, AIR 2019 SC 813. All the above cases, dealing with dispossession of the persons in occupation of the property without title by trespassers, considered and affirmed the above legal position. Hence it is settled law that even before the acquisition of statutory title by adverse possession for the requisite period under the Limitation Act, the possessory owner has well defined rights in the property. This possessory right is heritable, divisible and transferable as distinct from proprietary title. The Land Conservancy Act, 1957 prohibits only regarding matters for in the Act and the Rules. In Packiyam Ammal’s case (supra) this position has been unmistakably clarified in paragraph 14 of the judgment as hereunder:-
• “14. In regard to item No.10, the only reason for dismissing the suit was that the family is not having title to the property. Under Ext.A2, it is found that the family is in possession. It could be a Government land. The possessory right continues in the family. Any arrangement between the members of the family may not bind the Government. But, as between them, it has to be treated as a family asset and available for partition. A preliminary decree also will have to be passed with regard to item No.10.”

Order behind the back, in Violation of Natural Justice, can be ignored

JS Yadav v. State of UP, (2011) 6 SCC 570, it is held as under:

• “32. No order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting him and such an order if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The principles enshrined in the proviso to Order I Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide that impleadment of a necessary party is mandatory and in case of non-joinder of necessary party, the plaintiff/petitioner may not be entitled for the relief sought by him. The litigant has to ensure that the necessary party is before the Court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise the proceedings will have to fail. In Service Jurisprudence if an unsuccessful candidate challenges the selection process, he is bound to implead at least some of the successful candidates in representative capacity. In case the services of a person is terminated and another person is appointed at his place, in order to get relief, the person appointed at his place is the necessary party for the reason that even if the plaintiff/petitioner succeeds, it may not be possible for the Court to issue direction to accommodate the petitioner without removing the person who filled up the post manned by plaintiff/petitioner. (Vide:
  • Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. , AIR 1985 SC 167;
  • Ishwar Singh v. Kuldip Singh, 1995 (supp) 1 SCC 179; 
  • Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of WB, (2009) 1 SCC 768;
  • State of Assam v Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 408; and 
  • PSC, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht , AIR 2010 SC 2613.)”

Who are Entitled to Defend the Orders, are Necessary Parties

In Sh Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, 2015 AIR SC 3623, it is observed as under:

• “Every adjudicating authority may be nomenclatured as a tribunal but the said authority(ies) are different that pure and simple adjudicating authorities and that is why they are called the authorities. An Income Tax Commissioner, whatever rank he may be holding, when he adjudicates, he has to be made a party, for he can defend his order. He is entitled to contest. There are many authorities under many a statute. Therefore, the proposition that can safely be culled out is that the authorities or the tribunals, who in law are entitled to defend the orders passed by them, are necessary parties and if they are not arrayed as parties, the writ petition can be treated to be not maintainable or the court may grant liberty to implead them as parties in exercise of its discretion. There are tribunals which are not at all required to defend their own order, and in that case such tribunals need not be arrayed as parties.”

In Poonam v. State of UP, 2016-2 SCC 779, referring Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur, AIR 1999 SC 976, it is held as under:

• “17. The term “entitled to defend” confers an inherent right to a person if he or she is affected or is likely to be affected by an order to be passed by any legal forum, for there would be violation of natural justice. The principle of audi alteram partem has its own sanctity but the said principle of natural justice is not always put in strait jacket formula. That apart, a person or an authority must have a legal right or right in law to defend or assail.
• 34. … If a non-selected candidate challenges the selection, he is under legal obligation to implead the selected candidates as they are necessary parties and there can be no two opinions as regards such a proposition of law.”

Representative action

In Poonam v. State of UP, 2016-2 SCC 779, it is observed as under:

• “39. The aforesaid decisions do not lay down as a proposition of law that in every case when a termination is challenged, the affected person has to be made a party. What has been stated is when one challenges a provision as ultra vires the persons who are likely to be affected, some of them should be made parties in a representative capacity. That has been the consistent view of this Court in service jurisprudence.”

Necessary Party – Each case has to be understood in proper perspective

In Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur, AIR 1999 SC 976, the Court took exception to courts and tribunals being made parties. It is apposite to note here that propositions laid down in each case has to be understood in proper perspective. (Referred to in Poonam v. State of UP, 2016-2 SCC 779)

In Sh Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, 2015 AIR SC 3623, referring Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233, Udit Narain Singh (supra) and Savitri Devi (supra) it is observed as under:

• “It is apposite to note here that propositions laid down in each case has to be understood in proper perspective. Civil courts, which decide matters, are courts in the strictest sense of the term. Neither the court nor the Presiding Officer defends the order before the superior court it does not contest. If the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction or revisional jurisdiction, as the case may be, calls for the records, the same can always be called for by the High court without the Court or the Presiding Officer being impleaded as a party. Similarly, with the passage of time there have been many a tribunal which only adjudicate and they have nothing to do with the lis.  We may cite few examples;
  • the tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
  • the Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
  • the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals,
  • the Sales Tax Tribunal and such others.
• Every adjudicating authority may be nomenclatured as a tribunal but the said authority(ies) are different that pure and simple adjudicating authorities and that is why they are called the authorities. An
  • Income Tax Commissioner,
• whatever rank he may be holding, when he adjudicates, he has to be made a party, for he can defend his order. He is entitled to contest. There are many authorities under many a statute. Therefore, the proposition that can safely be culled out is that the authorities or the tribunals, who in law are entitled to defend the orders passed by them, are necessary parties and if they are not arrayed as parties, the writ petition can be treated to be not maintainable or the court may grant liberty to implead them as parties in exercise of its discretion. There are tribunals which are not at all required to defend their own order, and in that case such tribunals need not be arrayed as parties. To give another example:-in certain enactments, the
  • District Judges function as Election Tribunals
• from whose orders a revision or a writ may lie depending upon the provisions in the Act. In such a situation, the superior court, that is the High Court, even if required to call for the records, the District Judge need not be a party. Thus, in essence, when a tribunal or authority is required to defend its own order, it is to be made a party failing which the proceeding before the High Court would be regarded as not maintainable.”

In Poonam v. State of UP, 2016-2 SCC 779, it is observed as under:

• “40. In this regard, we may refer to the rule stated by Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem[37]:-
• “Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law but govern and are qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.”
• 41. A three-Judge Bench in Union of India and others v. Dhanwanti Devi and others[38] while discussing about the precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution, held that:
• “….. 10. Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. Law cannot afford to be static and therefore, Judges are to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents……”

Pro forma Party

A pro forma party to a litigation is one against whom no relief is sought for in a legal proceeding (at its beginning) on the posit that he is a proper party. It is usually done with a view to seek reliefs in future, amending the pleading, if the changed situation so warrants.

Plaintiff claims Ownership; Suit against Trespasser – Not Necessary to Implead ‘Previous Owners’ (Alleged by the Defendants)

R. K. S.  Builders v. Bhupinder Kumar , 2001-2 Punj LR 804, 2001-2 RCR (Civil) 497.

Facts of the Case

• Plaintiff alleged that he is owner of the property and that the said property is in the illegal possession of the defendants.
• The defendants contended that they have purchased the same from its rightful owners.
• During the pendency of the suit, the defendants have further sold the property to various persons.
• Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed.

This application was resisted by the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff had not added the previous owners of the property from whom the defendants purchased it. The trial court allowed the Petition.

The High Court, dismissing the Revision Petition, held as under:

• When the case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the property which has been illegally occupied by the defendants, it is not necessary to implead previous (rightful) owners (alleged by the defendants).

Land Reforms Act Conferred Title on Tenants: Previous Owners, Not Necessary Parties

Bir Singh v. Kishan Chand, AIR  2007 HP 24

• Non-joinder of the previous owners, divested of their ownership by virtue of the Land Reforms Act, and the ownership rights stood conferred upon the tenants, are not necessary parties.

Original Owner Not Necessary Party, When Dispute is Solely Between Purchaser and another

Kaleem Pasha v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka Vidhana, ICC 2018 4 810,

• In the absence of the plaintiff claiming any relief against the previous owners of a vehicle nor their participation in the suit was in any manner of help in the proper adjudication of the matter and also the disputed fact was solely between the plaintiff and defendant in the original suit, the original owner and the auction purchaser were not necessary parties.

Agreement for sale – Prior owner Necessary Party

Pamujula Narayana v. Ramachandruni Malakondaiah,  2006-3 ALD 278, ALT 2006 4 247.

Facts of the case

• Suit was for specific performance.
• Agreement was executed by the defendant as Power of Attorney holder of the Owner.
• Owner died even prior to the filing of the suit.
• Plaint was silent about the owner; and read as if PoA was the owner.

Court held:

• It is well known that the owner of the property agreed to be sold is a necessary party to the suit (and PoA not sufficient).

Suit dismissed if Prior owner, a Necessary Party, is not impleded within Limitation

In the above case, Pamujula Narayana v. Ramachandruni Malakondaiah,  2006-3 ALD 278, ALT 2006 4 247, it was further held –

• The suit will be barred, in view of Sec. 21 of Limitation Act, if prior owner (or successor) is not  impleaded within time prescribed. 

Vendee Becomes the Sole Owner

In Hardeva v. Ismail, AIR 1970 Raj 167, it was held – if it is possible to determine the rights and interests of the parties, not to dismiss a suit. It was also observed as under:

• “When the vendor has sold his property and has delivered the possession of the property to the vendee, the vendee becomes the sole owner of the property and it is upto the vendee to defend his title against any person who claims any right in the property. The vendor may be a proper party, but he is not a necessary party inasmuch as an effectual decree can be passed in favour of third person against the vendee.”

Two tests for determining who is a necessary party

It was laid down in the Benares Bank Ltd. v. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1947 All 18 (FB), there were two tests –

• Firstly, there must be a right to some relief against the defendant, and
• Secondly, in the absence of such a party it could not be possible to pass an effective decree. (Approved in Deputy Commissioner, Hardoi v. Rama Krishna Narain, AIR 1953 SC 521)

It was further pointed out in the Benares Bank Ltd. v. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1947 All 18 (FB) – where the plaintiff files a suit against a defendant who is not the full owner of the property and has only a limited right, the owner is a necessary party as no effectual decree could be passed against the defendant (Subbaraya Sastri v. Seetha Rama-swami, AIR 1933 Mad 664; Rahima Bi v. Vellore Municipal Council, AIR 1954 Mad 495, Brojanath Bose v. Durga Prosad Singh. (1907) ILR 34 Cal 753, Narahari Mohanti v. Ghanshyam Bel, AIR 1963 Orissa 186, Chenthiperumal Pillai v. D. M. Devasa-hayam, AIR 1956 Trav-Co. 181 (FB), and Chandra Nath Sarma v. Guna Ram Kalita, AIR 1949 Assam 21).

Foot Note

Section 99, and Rule 9 to 13 of Order I, CPC are the relevant provisions. They read as under:

Section 99 of the CPC reads as under:

• 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 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 proceedings 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.

Rule 9 to 13 of Order I CPC read

• 9. Misjoinder and nonjoinder: No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it:
  Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to nonjoinder of a necessary party.
• 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff
• (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted thought a bona fide mistake, and that it is
• necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, Order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.
• (2) Court may strike out or add parties.-
• The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, Order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in Order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
• (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.
• (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended-
• Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.
• (5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.
• 11. Conduct of suit The Court may give the conduct of 1[a suit] to such persons as it deems proper.
• 12. Appearance of one of several plaintiffs or defendants for others
• (1) Where there are more plaintiffs than one, any one or more of them may be authorized by any other of them to appear, plead or act for such other in any proceeding; and in like manner, where there are more defendants than one, any one or more of them may be authorized by any other of them to appear, plead or act for such other in any proceeding.
• (2) The authority shall be in writing signed by the party giving it and shall be filed in Court.
• 13. Objections as to non-joinder or misjoinder.
• All objections on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of 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 objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived.

Read in this Cluster:

Civil Procedure Code

• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits

Power of attorney

• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit

Title, ownership and Possession

• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law

Principles and Procedure

• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Admission, Relevancy and Proof
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities will not Confer ‘Title’
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.

Evidence Act – General

• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• Sec. 65B
• Sections 65A & 65B, Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao: in Nutshell
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• Law on Documents
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as a ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Easement

• What is Easement?
• Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit”?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition

Stamp Act

• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose

Will

• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Religious issues
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs and Companies
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Indian Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions