JUDGMENT : Barman, A.C.J. 1. This appeal filed by Defendants 1 and 3 arises out of a suit filed by the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation, against the Defendants-Appellants and also against Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church, Bhanjanagar, for ejectment of Defendant No. 1 from the suit house and for recovery of Rs. 583/20 nP. as mesne profits for the period from November 1, 1959, to February 28, 1962 in the circumstances hereinafter stated. 2. In 1860 the Baptist Society purchased the suithouse, made repairs and it was used for the residence of the Church Pastor. In 1903, the suit-house was settled with the Plaintiff. In 1959, Defendant No. 1 Paramananda Senapati took forcible possession of the suit house; thereupon, the Plaintiff filed the suit against the Defendants for reliefs aforesaid. 3. The defence of Defendants 1 and 3 is that Defendant No. 1 is the tenant and that Defendant No. 3 is the Secretary of Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church. The defence of Defendant No. 2 is that the suit house belonged to it and that Defendant No. 1 is the tenant under Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit against all the Defendants on the finding that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit-house. The Defendants appealed from the decision of the trial Court. The learned lower appellate Court found that the Plaintiff had subsisting title. He decreed the suit as against Appellants-Defendants 1 and 3, but dismissed the suit as against Defendant No. 2 Baptish Church on the ground that admittedly Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church is an unregistered association and the Plaintiff did not take steps under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC Code, and accordingly to that extent, the decree passed by the learned trial Court was reversed. It is against this decision of the learned lower appellate Court that this appeal has been filed by Defendants 1 and 3 against whom the decree was passed by the learned lower appellate Court, although the suit against Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church was dismissed. 5. The point urged on behalf of the Defendants-Appellants is that as the suit was dismissed against Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church, no decree can be passed against Defendants 1 and 3. The Defendants-Appellants point is that the decree passed against them is infructuous, because there is no decree against Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church. 5. The point urged on behalf of the Defendants-Appellants is that as the suit was dismissed against Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church, no decree can be passed against Defendants 1 and 3. The Defendants-Appellants point is that the decree passed against them is infructuous, because there is no decree against Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church. It was submitted that the suit cannot be decreed in the absence of Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church who is a necessary party. Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church as an unregistered association, cannot be treated to be a party as the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, CPC Code, were not complied with. In paragraph 7 of the written statement the Defendants stated that Defendant No. 3 is the Secretary of the Baptist Church and he is in possession and management of all the properties of the Church including the suit-house; the Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church has got the full right to induct tenants into the suit house as long as there is no pastor and lies vacant. Defendant No. 3 in the capacity of the Secretary inducted Defendant No. 1 as the tenant of half portion of the suit house and has been releasing rent every month from Defendant No. 1. 6. It is thus clear that there is joint assertion of title by Defendants 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, the suit cannot be decided in the absence of one of the Defendants namely Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church as an unregistered association, who is necessary party. The position in substance is that the rival claimants to title are the Plaintiff Baptist Missionary Society and Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church. If Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church has title, then Defendants-Appellants 1 and 3 cannot be ejected because they both claim through the Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church. So the question whether Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church has any title or not has to be decided in its presence. In the absence of Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church the question of his title cannot be decided. So, the suit must be dismissed altogether. 7. So the question whether Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church has any title or not has to be decided in its presence. In the absence of Defendant No. 2 Baptist Church the question of his title cannot be decided. So, the suit must be dismissed altogether. 7. In support of their contentions, the Defendants Appellants relied on a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, where it was held that the principles governing the rules of joinder of Defendants in an action for ejectment are mainly two: first, if any of the persons in possession is left out, he remains in possession as not being affected by the decree, and the decree as one in ejectment and for possession becomes infructuous because the persons ejected as being bound by the decree can always come in under the person who remains in possession; and second, there is a certain amount of risk involved in not making the persons in actual possession Defendants, for in execution of the decree persons may happen to be turned out who may then bring actions against the Plaintiff for wrongful dispossession, not being bound by the decree. Thus, in a case where the Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that a person is in possession and there is no question of any particular share of which he may be in possession it is obvious that it is not possible to apply the principle embodied in the first part of this rule. It the name of any tenant in possession be omitted as a Defendant, those parts of the premises which are in his occupation cannot be recovered in that action. The rule that all persons in actual possession should be joined as parties has been firmly established and the principle that a suit will not be entertained where no effective decree can be passed in it is well recognised. Arunadoya Chakrabarty and Others Vs. Mahammad Ali and Others, . 8. In this view of the position, on the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the decision of the Courts below is set aside. The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed against all the Defendants. This appeal is accordingly allowed with costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed