JUDGMENT 1. The First Appeal No.1454 of 2003 is against the judgment and order dated 15-07-2002 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai in short cause civil Suit no.5813 of 1996 whereby the suit was dismissed. The Petitioner in Writ Petition no.2992 of 2011 have questioned the validity of the order dated 1st March 2011 passed by the Minister Co-operation department of the Government of Maharashtra and prayed for to set it aside. Both the proceedings are before this court pursuant administrative direction from Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this court. 2. The facts stated are:- The suit was instituted by the Appellant (Plaintiff) against the Neelkantha Nagar Cooperative Housing society Ltd. for the declaration that the defendant society have no right, title and interest and claim over the suit property or the structure Room no. 8 admeasuring 37.5 feet x 10 feet in chawl no. 1, situated on Land City Survey no. 171 A, admeasuring 5143 Sq. meters being carved out of land S.No.20/1 admeasuring Acre 1.14 Gunthas, land Survey no.21/15 admeasuring 24.25 Gunthas and land S.N.22 admeasuring Acre 1.15 Gunthas and land S.No.46/35 admeasuring Gunthas 9 only all situated at village Kirol Taluka Kurla was property purchased by Kashinath Janardan Sawant for Rs 19606/- document registered at S.No.887 of 1944 Jamshetji Kolbhi Manekshaw on 18.02.1944. The land owner Kashinath Janardan Sawant whose permanent address was shown as Bharat Glass works at Mahul expired on 30.10.1969, while his death was registered on 05.11.1969. The appellant also sought injunction that the defendant be restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in any manner. The appellant claimed as tenant of the suit room. According to the appellant, the defendant society is not the owner though it claim so. The appellant pointed out that Tahasildar, Kurla (Mulund) issued notice dated 03-12-2012 addressed to Kashinath Janardan Sawant (dead person) to pay sum of Rs 12453/-which was received by Talathi under provisional receipt dated 27.12.2012 by Cheque no. 328012 drawn upon State Bank of Patiala. While appellant want to show that the Municipal corporation of greater Mumbai (MCGM) has for the year 2013-2014 has continued to assess property in the name of dead person Late Shri Kashinath Janardan Sawant C/o. B. R Tripathi and others 1/8 Sawant wadi, Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar (West) Mumbai, 400 086. Mentioning property account no. While appellant want to show that the Municipal corporation of greater Mumbai (MCGM) has for the year 2013-2014 has continued to assess property in the name of dead person Late Shri Kashinath Janardan Sawant C/o. B. R Tripathi and others 1/8 Sawant wadi, Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar (West) Mumbai, 400 086. Mentioning property account no. NX0609210160000 in the name of Holder OCC OXFORD WOODLAND N 7368(2A) 199/BA L.B.S Marg, AC Shed first assessed on 01071978. Who inherited entire real estate and personal property left by Late Kashinath Janardan Sawant after his demise is an important issue to be solved and answered in this case. 3. The defendant claimed that they got title to the suit land under the registered deed of conveyance dated 25th July 1996 from M/s.Bhaveshwar. According to the defendant upon change of ownership, they had sent attornment notice to the plaintiff as well. It is case of the defendants that one Lalitkumar Mamitlal Thakkar was owner of the entire property bearing Survey no. 20, Hissa no. 2(part) and 22(part) 171(part) and survey no. 171/1 to 26 total admeasuring about 5972.48 square Yards situated at village Kirol (Ghatkopar) Taluka Kurla, District Mumbai. It is contended by the defendant that M/s. Bhaveshwar Developers had constructed a Building of the Neelkanth Co-op Housing Society Ltd. and it was sold to the respective flat purchasers. The flat purchasers formed co-operative Housing Society which was registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. According to the Appellant the respondent (ori. Defendant) M/s. Bhaveshwar Developers never claimed as owner of the suit property and never owned the suit property and the society of the flat purchasers never produced any Deed of conveyance during pendency of the Suit in the Bombay City Civil court. It is thus contended by the appellant that the respondent society is not the owner of the suit property. 4. The trial court in the course of the impugned Judgment referred to the documents Ex1 collectively exhibited by consent. The plaintiff appellant by his letter dated 21 May 1995 had sought the permission for repairs to the suit premises. The letter was replied on 22 May 1995 by the Defendants and the permission was granted. Ex. 4. The trial court in the course of the impugned Judgment referred to the documents Ex1 collectively exhibited by consent. The plaintiff appellant by his letter dated 21 May 1995 had sought the permission for repairs to the suit premises. The letter was replied on 22 May 1995 by the Defendants and the permission was granted. Ex. B is copy of the letter dated delivered to the Defendants by the Plaintiff, requesting the defendant to provide him a copy of the registered conveyance Deed to show that the property has been legally transferred to the Defendants. Defendant by letter Ex. C, informed the plaintiff that the Defendant became owner of the property under the Deed of Conveyance executed in their favour by the Owner Shri L.M Thakkar and the Bhaveshwar Developers. By document Ex. E the plaintiff had demanded the registered conveyance Deed from the Defendants. Ex. H is the document addressed to the Plaintiff by the Sub-registrar of Assurances informing the plaintiff that the document No. BBJ. 338 of 1996 was pending for the Income Tax and Urban Land Ceiling queries and for determining the Market value. Thus the fact of conveyance is in evidence .There was no prayer by the Plaintiff for cancellation of the Sale Deed or the document executed in favour of the Defendants. Learned trial Judge also found that there was no any threat to the possession of the plaintiff-Appellant. And therefore no discretionary relief of injunction was granted and the suit was dismissed . Learned trial Judge framed Issues no 1 and 2 as under:- “1) Does the Defendants/ society prove that by Deed of Conveyance Dated 25-01-1996 the society has become absolute owner in respect of the lot of land bearing city survey No. 171/1(part), 171(part), and 171/1 to 26 of Survey No. 22, Hissa No. 1 (part), survey No. 20 (part) of village kirol near Ghatkopar, Mumbai including Room No. 8 admeasuring 37.5 feet x10 feet, Chawl no. 1, Sawantwadi, Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar (west), Mumbai-86 (the suit premises hereinafter)? This issue was left “unanswered” by the learned trial Judge, while second issue as to jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court to entertain and try the suit was curiously answered as “Does not survive.” 5. According to the appellant, the Revision application no. 1, Sawantwadi, Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar (west), Mumbai-86 (the suit premises hereinafter)? This issue was left “unanswered” by the learned trial Judge, while second issue as to jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court to entertain and try the suit was curiously answered as “Does not survive.” 5. According to the appellant, the Revision application no. 772 of 2009 under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960, the revision application was allowed on 01-03-2011 by the Honorable Minister for co-operation Department of the State Government of Maharashtra and he was pleased to cancel the order of registration of Nilkanth Nagar Co-operative Housing Society passed on 12-03-1992 by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and order dated 23-09-2009 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai division. It was observed that wrong, baseless information was furnished by M/s Bhaveshwar Developers regarding alleged ownership and title of the suit property. Official assignee was appointed. That being so, it is submitted by the appellant that Nilkantha Nagar cooperative Society can no longer claim as legal owner of the suit property to whom plaintiff can attorn as Tenant. This order is subject of the Writ Petition in hand and the order impugned in the Petition, needless to state would be valid subject to the final decision of the competent Civil court. Legal rights of the parties to the suit, claiming the suit property as canvassed in pleadings in the pending civil suit are required to be determined by the Competent Civil Court only and not by the executive or revenue authority. 6. It is true that when an preliminary issue is raised by either of the parties as to the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, such issue must be treated as preliminary issue to be decided in the suit according to law. Such issue could not be brushed aside so as to say 'do not survive' when evidence is led. Learned trial judge was clearly in legal error to leave the issue no 1 as unanswered and issue no 2 which was raised as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain and to try the suit was surprisingly left undecided. Such issue could not be brushed aside so as to say 'do not survive' when evidence is led. Learned trial judge was clearly in legal error to leave the issue no 1 as unanswered and issue no 2 which was raised as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain and to try the suit was surprisingly left undecided. In view of this situation, the learned trial Judge was bound to give full opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence in the suit for just decision of the case and after recording entire evidence, as may be offered by the parties, to record and answer the finding as to the issues framed to decide the nature of the right of the plaintiff to possess the suit property and shall also record finding as to ownership of and legal right ,title and interest claimed to the suit property .Since issues were framed in view of the procedure under Order 14 of Civil Procedure Code all issues framed be answered and decided. Order 14 Rule 2 reads thus- Court to pronounce judgment on all issues – (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to – (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. 7. The procedure as above make it clear that the trial Judge would have no justification to avoid answering the issue or to leave the issue unanswered. The trial Judge has to meet all the issues in real controversy between the parties by a well reasoned Judgment. Learned trial judge have failed to abide by the mandate of the provision. 7. The procedure as above make it clear that the trial Judge would have no justification to avoid answering the issue or to leave the issue unanswered. The trial Judge has to meet all the issues in real controversy between the parties by a well reasoned Judgment. Learned trial judge have failed to abide by the mandate of the provision. Respondent Cooperative society had questioned the order dated 1st March 2011 passed by the Minister, co-operation department of the Government of Maharashtra. This Court by order dated 27th June 2011 was pleased to direct that the said order shall not be given effect to pending the writ Petition. Since the proceeding in the suit is now remanded to the trial court, the decision of the Civil Court as to the right, title and interest in the suit property being the decision of the competent Civil Court shall be final and binding between the parties. Order dated 01-03-2011 passed by the Minister (Cooperation) bearing No. RVA2709/PRA.KRA.772/15/ Sahakar, Panan and Vastrodyog Vibhag, Mantralaya, Mumbai shall be subject to the final decision in the pending short cause Suit no. 5813 of 1996 to be decided by the City civil court, Greater Mumbai. Any person seeking to grab the land unlawfully taking disadvantage of want of legal heir of the last known owner of the property shall never be encouraged. Unlawful land grabbing of real estate may succeed because sometimes corrupt or negligent self serving elements intermingled in the Government machinery may be responsible to encourage nominal money payments towards revenue arrears and obtaining of written receipts by an unauthorized person to help the unlawful cause of land grabbing and tax dodging. If the trial court finds that the property is left by it's last known lawful owner without leaving any legal heir, descendant or rightful nominee or beneficiary such properties, when situate in a State, would vest in the State Government because of the provisions of Article 296 of the Constitution, which reads as hereunder:- "Subject as hereinafter provided, any property in the territory of India which, if this Constitution had not come into operation, would have accrued to His Majesty or, as the case may be. to the Ruler of an Indian State by escheat or lapse or as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner, shall, if it is property situate in a State, vest in such State, and shall, in any other case, vest in the Union". 8. In the case in hand, if the trial Court finds it necessary to apply doctrine of escheat it has to be applied i.e. to order forfeiture of all property (including bank accounts) to the state treasury if it appears certain that there are no rightful heirs, descendants or named beneficiaries to take the property upon the death of the last known owner of the property concerned. The State Government has a right to take all property within its jurisdiction by escheat for want of a legal heir or successor or as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner. We therefore direct the appellant to implead State of Maharashtra as necessary and proper party in the present Suit upon his appearance in the trial court. We expect the trial Court to take the controversy to it's logical and legal outcome as it is often experienced in such cases that either of the party may upon some pretext or the other i.e. some sort of settlement outside the Court, try to withdraw from the case or to avoid the Court or remain absent from the Court finding that serious issue is being tried which may have drastic consequences. The trial judge may in that event ensure smooth progress of the suit till it reaches it's logical end i. e. by adopting measures such as appointment of amicus curiae, legal representative etc. for the party, if it is satisfied that any party is avoiding to attend the Court or trying to withdraw from the case . Parties to attend the trial court on 21st October 2013 at 11.00 a.m. without fail. Hence First appeal and Writ Petition are disposed of accordingly. Rule in the Writ Petition is made absolute accordingly. 9. Proceedings is therefore remanded back to the trial Court with request to the trial court to hear the parties fully and dispose of the entire controversy in the suit expeditiously and as early as possible considering that the Plaintiff who brought the facts on record is senior Citizen. The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. 10. R & P be sent back forthwith. 11. The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. 10. R & P be sent back forthwith. 11. No order as to Costs. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the Principal secretary, Law and Judiciary Department of the State of Maharashtra for his information and necessary action.