JUDGMENT : Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. 1. Questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Judgment dated 28.04.2017 of the learned District Judge, Special Division-I, Sikkim at Gangtok, in Title Suit No. 21 of 2013 [Januki Pradhan vs. Chetan Sharma and Sikkim Industrial Development & Investment Corporation (SIDICO)], the Appellant (Defendant No. 1 before the learned Trial Court) is before this Court. 2. Urging this Court to set aside the impugned Judgment, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant advanced the arguments that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the Respondent No.1 (the Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) could not have purchased the area of 5960 sq.ft. from the owners of the land since it had been leased out to M/s Agarwal Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity „Agarwal Industries?) in 1984 for a period of 25 (twenty-five) years and the lease period extended thereafter. That, clause (iv) of the Lease Deed between the Lessors i.e. Majhi brothers and the Lessee i.e. Agarwal Industries, specifically debarred the lessor from selling, mortgaging, transferring or assigning in any manner to any other person, whatsoever any part or the whole of the land, without the express consent of the lessee. However, the Sale Deed, Exhibit-1, between the six Majhi brothers and the Respondent No.1 was executed on 07.08.2006, during the subsistence of the lease, thereby making it an invalid sale. Placing further reliance on Exhibit-1, it was contended that Rule 20 of Sikkim State Rules, Registration of Document, 1930, provides that registration of documents ought to be completed within four month of its execution. Exhibit-1 would reveal that the sale was executed on 07.08.2006 but registration was completed only on 15.11.2010, thereby rendering the document and its execution invalid. The thrust of the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant was that the Appellant herein is the Caretaker-cum-Chowkidar of Agarwal Industries with no rights over the suit property, hence it was the bounden duty of the learned Trial Court to implead Agarwal Industries and the Majhi brothers as necessary parties to the suit in view of the afore stated circumstances. Since, the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and other grounds put forth, the impugned Judgment be set aside. Since, the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and other grounds put forth, the impugned Judgment be set aside. To buttress his arguments, reliance was placed on Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar and others, AIR 1958 SC 886 (V 45 C 122) Shri Kuldip Singh vs. Smt. Balwant Kaur (deceased) represented by her L.R. (i) Smt. Surinder Kaur and others, AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 291, Chuba Temsu Ao and others vs. Nangponger and others, AIR 1994 Gauhati 110, Terai Tea Co. Ltd. vs. Kumkum Mittal and others, AIR 1994 Calcutta 191 Kameshwar Choudhary and etc. vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1998 Patna 141 and Poonam vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 779 . 3. In contra, the arguments canvassed by learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 was that in the first instance, it is evident from “Schedule-A” to the Plaint that the suit property is confined to the factory-shed on the plot of land and does not concern the land purchased by her, hence the Appeal deserves a dismissal on this ground alone. That, the suit property is described as follows; “All that part and parcel of one big room and two small room (sic) with total plinth area of 1100 Sq.ft. (approax) (sic) in the factory-shed of total plinth area of 5960 Sq.ft. purchased by Smt. Januki Pradhan (plaintiff supra) from SIDICO on auction on 31st August, 2006 and standing on a plot of land of plaintiff measuring .0540 hectares situated at Majhitar under West-Pandam Block Khatian, Duga Elaka, Gangtok Sub-division of Sikkim State.” 4. That, even if the plot of land described in “Schedule A” is to be considered, the Appellant has no locus standi to raise the issue as admittedly he is only the Caretaker of Agarwal Industries. Learned Counsel would further contend that in fact, the suit property was auctioned by Respondent No.2 and purchased by the Respondent No.1, which is admitted by Respondent No.2 and the Appellant in their evidence before the learned Trial Court. Further, when the suit is confined to the factory-shed, no reason arises for the Appellant to persistently harp on the point of purchase of land by the Appellant or the lease deed. Further, when the suit is confined to the factory-shed, no reason arises for the Appellant to persistently harp on the point of purchase of land by the Appellant or the lease deed. The attention of this Court was drawn to Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the impugned Judgment, wherein the learned Trial Court on the issue of non-joinder of parties has concluded that the suit pertains to the three rooms in the concerned factory-shed in occupation of the Appellant on the pretext of being the Caretaker of the premises for Agarwal Industries. To the contrary, the evidence would reveal that the Respondent No.2 had put the property on auction and was later duly purchased by Respondent No.1. Hence, Agarwal Industries is not a necessary party as correctly held by the learned Trial Court. In the said circumstances, the points raised by the Appellant are non-issues lacking in merit thereby requiring the Appeal to be dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, for his part would contend that Exhibit-3 which is a Sale Certificate issued by the Managing Director of Sikkim Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (for short „SIDICO?), clarifies that they had sold the factory-shed for a consideration value of Rs.4.00 lakhs (Rupees four lakhs) only, and therefore, no further confusion arises in this context. Pointing to Exhibit-4, it was contended that pursuant to Exhibit-3 this document was executed which reveals that the factory-shed was handed over by them and taken over by the Respondent No.1. A letter subsequently was issued to the Appellant informing him of the transaction requiring him to vacate the suit premises. In view of the above documents no further role of the Respondent No.2 arises. Reference was also made to the Order of the learned Trial Court dated 12.12.2016, wherein the Appellant had sought to examine Mahesh Agarwal, the owner of Agarwal Industries as his witness but had subsequently voluntarily dropped the witness on his inability to produce him. The question of their non-joinder does not arise as Agarwal Industries had no role to play after the auction of the factory-shed. That, the reluctance of Mahesh Agarwal to appear as witness, is indicative of the fact that Agarwal Industries had no interest in being a party to the proceedings in any capacity. In view of the submissions, the Appeal deserves a dismissal. 6. That, the reluctance of Mahesh Agarwal to appear as witness, is indicative of the fact that Agarwal Industries had no interest in being a party to the proceedings in any capacity. In view of the submissions, the Appeal deserves a dismissal. 6. The arguments of learned Counsel for opposing parties have been heard in extenso and given due consideration. The impugned Judgment, the pleadings and documents on records have also been carefully perused by me. 7. The Respondent No.1, as the Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, averred that she is the owner of a plot of land measuring .0540 hectares situated at Majhitar, having purchased it from its previous joint owners. That, a factoryshed with a total plinth area of 5960 sq.ft. existed on the land but was duly purchased by her on auction from SIDICO, the Respondent No.2, for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) only, on 31.08.2006, vide Sale Certificate dated 02.09.2006. She took possession of the said factory-shed in terms of the “handing over and taking over” dated 04.09.2006, executed between her and the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 informed her that the Appellant was the temporary Caretaker of the factory-shed and would vacate the said premises towards which a Notice had been issued to him requiring him to vacate the property on or before 30.09.2006. On his refusal to comply with the Notice, Plaintiff took necessary steps before the District Collector, East Sikkim at Gangtok, who directed the parties to move the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievances. Her contention is that the Appellant is in illegal occupation of the suit property denying her ownership. Hence, she sought for declaration of title, khas possession and permanent injunction and other consequential relief’s before the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, in Title Suit No. 21 of 2013. 8. The Appellant filed his written statement as Defendant No.1, denying and disputing the averments made in the Plaint and contended that the suit land had been leased out to Agarwal Industries for a period of 25(twenty-five) years from 1984 with an option for extending of the same for another period of 25(twenty-five) years. The initial period of lease expired on which Agarwal Industries exercised its option of extension and the Appellant is their Caretaker-cum- Chowkidar. The initial period of lease expired on which Agarwal Industries exercised its option of extension and the Appellant is their Caretaker-cum- Chowkidar. That, in fact, the Respondent No.1 could not have purchased the suit property as the lease was subsisting at the relevant time and a clause in the Lease Deed dated 22.04.1986 (sic „1984?) prohibited sale of the suit property during the subsistence of the lease. That, after Agarwal Industries was unable to make good the loan taken by them from the Respondent No.2, the plant and machinery were put on sale. During such time, the Respondent No.2 gave him additional charge as Caretaker of the factory-shed for a few years and he worked for the Respondent No.2, which relieved him in the year 2006. That in fact, he does not have right, title and interest over the suit property and Mahesh Agarwal of Agarwal Industries is still the Lessee of the entire leasehold land in question. Therefore, the Plaintiff ought to seek relief’s against the Lessee of the suit land of whom the Appellant is an employee. 9. The Respondent No.2 for its part averred that Agarwal Industries had taken a loan from them for the purpose of setting up a factory, in default of payment the upset value of the property was fixed and the property put up for auction. As none came forward for the bidding at the public auction, the Respondent No.2 after due permission from the Certificate Officer bid for the auction and took possession of the property. Later, the same property was put up for sale, in response to which the Respondent No.1 offered the highest bid of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) only, which was accepted and Sale Certificate issued on 02.09.2006 in her favour. This was followed by physical handing and taking over of the property with information to the Appellant who had been temporarily placed as their Caretaker, to vacate the premises on or before 30.09.2006. Hence, the Respondent No.2 had no right, title and interest over the suit property. 10. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication. (i) Whether the Suit suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as Agarwal Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. has not been made a party to the suit? Hence, the Respondent No.2 had no right, title and interest over the suit property. 10. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication. (i) Whether the Suit suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as Agarwal Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. has not been made a party to the suit? (ii) Whether the suit property is the lease hold property of Agarwal Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. of which Defendant No. 1 is only a caretaker? (iii) Whether the suit is undervalued? (iv) Whether the Plaintiff acquired the property from its previous joint owners through a registered Sale Deed document 15.11.2010? (v) Whether the Plaintiff purchased one factory shed with a total plinth area of 5960 sq. ft. on auction/sale from the SIDICO i.e., the Defendant No.2, for a sum of Rs.4 lacs on 31.08.2006 vide a Sale Certificate No. SIDICO/2006-07/395 dated 02.09.2006? (vi) Any other relief’s? 11. The parties put forth their evidence in Court, on closure of which final arguments were heard. Issue No. (v) was taken up first for decision where the learned Trial Court after examining and appreciating the evidence on record, concluded that the Respondent No.1 had purchased the concerned factory-shed on 31.08.2006. Issue No. (iv) and (ii) were taken up together wherein the learned Trial Court found that the Plaintiff had acquired the concerned land on which the factory-shed stands, from its previous owners. That, neither the suit property nor the concerned factory-shed or the land under it can be regarded as the leasehold property of Agarwal Industries nor can the Defendant No.1 be regarded as their Caretaker. In Issue No.(i), it was held that the Defendant No.1 (the Appellant herein) was the only necessary party to the present suit. That, Agarwal Industries has no direct interest or other interest and no relief’s were sought for by the Plaintiff (Respondent No.1) from Agarwal Industries which is therefore not a necessary or a proper party to the suit. While deciding Issue No.(iii), the learned Trial Court observed that the valuation put forward by the Plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit in 2013 was reasonable and issue No. (vi) was decided accordingly. Hence, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff (Respondent No.1). 12. The pivotal question for consideration is whether Agarwal Industries is a necessary party to the instant matter. Hence, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff (Respondent No.1). 12. The pivotal question for consideration is whether Agarwal Industries is a necessary party to the instant matter. It is indeed a unique case where an alleged Caretaker is taking up cudgels on behalf of his alleged owners who have rightly not shown any interest in pursuing the matter or being impleaded as a party having washed their hands off the entire issue after the decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 21 of 1996 on 03.08.1996. 13. While bearing in mind the facts of the case, it is but apposite to refer to the decision of this Court supra, being Exhibit-C. The six Majhi brothers, being joint owners of landed property at Majhitar, West Pendam, had entered into a lease agreement on 22.04.1984 with Agarwal Industries and leased out .0840 hectares of land to them in four different plots of land for activities as mentioned in the Lease Deed. In terms of the lease agreement, which was for a period of 25 (twentyfive) years, commencing from 1st April, 1984 to 31st March, 2009, the lease could be renewed at the option of the Lessee, for a maximum period of another 25 (twenty-five) years on the same terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. Condition No.(iv) reads as hereunder; “That the lessor shall not sell, mortgage, or transfer or assign in any manner to any other person whatsoever any part or the whole of the land, without the express consent of the lessee.” 14. Pursuant to this lease agreement, Agarwal Industries set up a factory-shed comprising of one big room and two small rooms with a total plinth area of 1100 sq.ft. having obtained loan from the Respondent No.2 for establishment and running of a wire industry. Some part of the loan thus obtained was repaid while the rest remained unpaid with interest accruing. The Respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings being Civil Suit No. 57 of 94 before the Certificate Officer for issuance of a certificate for Rs.43,10,636/- (Rupees forty-three lakhs, ten thousand, six hundred and thirty-six) only, being the outstanding amount. After necessary inquiry under the Sikkim Public Demand Recovery Act, 1988, a Certificate was sought for and issued to the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings being Civil Suit No. 57 of 94 before the Certificate Officer for issuance of a certificate for Rs.43,10,636/- (Rupees forty-three lakhs, ten thousand, six hundred and thirty-six) only, being the outstanding amount. After necessary inquiry under the Sikkim Public Demand Recovery Act, 1988, a Certificate was sought for and issued to the Respondent No.2. The Certificate was put to execution, inter alia, by the Respondent No.2, and the matter registered as Execution Case No. 3 of 95. The factory-shed belonging to Agarwal Industries stood attached and the upset price of the property was fixed at Rs.6,54,670/- (Rupees six lakhs, fifty-four thousand, six hundred and seventy) only. A public Notice was issued in the local newspaper on 22.06.1996 towards this purpose. Mahesh Agarwal, being one of the Directors of the Company, preferred the petition (supra) under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court along with an Application for stay of the Order and the date fixed for such auction. He admitted to the debt owed to the Respondent No.2 before this Court and conceded his inability to repay the certificate dues and therefore had no objection to the process of execution. Objection however was raised on the upset price being grossly inadequate and unjust. The High Court while disposing of the Civil Writ Petition supra, observed that there was no reason to interfere with the Order of the Certificate Officer or the auction as scheduled. The Court, however, observed that the Certificate Officer should make all efforts to finalise sale of the plant machinery and other fixtures before making the sale of the structure absolute to prevent exposure to the elements thereby diminishing its value. That, this should be brought to the knowledge of the bidders before the auction commenced. 15. Following the above facts and circumstances, the property was put to auction, however, none came forward for bidding thereof leading to the Respondent No.1 to seek permission from the Certificate Officer to bid for the auction and take possession of the property as its auction purchaser against the upset price. This was followed by the Respondent No.2 publishing a Sale Notice in the local Newspaper seeking sealed quotations from intending purchasers for the sale of the property in question. This was followed by the Respondent No.2 publishing a Sale Notice in the local Newspaper seeking sealed quotations from intending purchasers for the sale of the property in question. In response thereto, the Respondent No.1 offered the highest bid of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) only, which was accepted and Sale Certificate issued on 02.09.2006 in her favour. This was followed by physical handing over and taking over of the property by the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No. 1 on 04.09.2006, with information to the Appellant on 19.09.2006 of the said circumstance, requiring him to vacate the premises on or before 30.09.2006. The Appellant having failed to comply with the direction, the Respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 21 of 2013 [Januki Pradhan vs. Chetan Sharma and Sikkim Industrial Development & Investment Corporation (SIDICO)] before the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, East and North and Gangtok, as elucidated hereinabove. 16. It is the constant reiteration of the Appellant that he is the Caretaker of Agarwal Industries but when the concerned property on the leased land has already been purchased by the Respondent No.1, there is no question of the Appellant remaining as the Caretaker of Agarwal Industries who have laid no further claim to it. In fact, a careful perusal of the cross-examination of the Appellant would indicate that he is aware that the Respondent No.1 had on 31.08.2006 purchased the factory-shed from SIDICO on auction and that he was appointed as Caretaker of the factory-shed by the SIDICO till 30.09.2006 but he had not vacated the portion of the factory shed under his possession. He has also admitted that the suit land was purchased by the Respondent No.1 through a registered Sale Deed dated 15.11.2010, from the Majhi brothers. According to him, as per Exhibit-B, Mahesh Agarwal had asked him to stay in the concerned portion of the factory-shed and as such till date he has not vacated the portion of the factory-shed under his occupation. A perusal of Exhibit-B would indicate that it is a letter issued by Mahesh Agarwal to the Appellant asking him to remain at the premises from October 1st, 2006 as Caretaker. As already discussed hereinabove, the property was sold as per Exhibit-3, consequently, Mahesh Agarwal had no authority to issue such a letter. A perusal of Exhibit-B would indicate that it is a letter issued by Mahesh Agarwal to the Appellant asking him to remain at the premises from October 1st, 2006 as Caretaker. As already discussed hereinabove, the property was sold as per Exhibit-3, consequently, Mahesh Agarwal had no authority to issue such a letter. That apart, the contents of the said document has not been proved as per the provisions of law thereby rendering it devoid of probative value. It is relevant to note that Mahesh Agarwal listed as one of the Appellant?s witnesses was dropped by him from the array as evident from the Order dated 12.12.2016, extracted herein below; ............................................................... Date is fixed for authentication/confirmation of his evidence-on-affidavit by witness Mahesh Agarwal/his cross-examination. The witness is absent. Ld. Senior Advocate Shri N. Rai submits that the Defendant No.1 does not wish to examine the above witness in support of his case. It is, accordingly, prayed that the Defendant be allowed to drop the said witness. Not opposed. Heard considered (sic). In view of the above submissions, the Defendant No.1 is allowed to drop the witness Mahesh Agarwal. …………………………............................................………” [emphasis supplied] 17. It stands to reason that the said Mahesh Agarwal was unwilling to appear as a witness. If he was still the Lessee of the property then he would undoubtedly have appeared before the Court to clarify his position by testifying as a witness of the Appellant. In addition to the above, nothing precluded the Defendant No. 1 or Mahesh Agarwal from filing a petition under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking impleadment of Agarwal Industries as a party to the Title Suit. 18. The facts and circumstances of the case as discussed herein above and the documents on record clearly indicate that Agarwal Industries had no further interest in the property pursuant to the auction held and the sale thereafter to the Respondent No.1. No reliefs have been claimed against the Agarwal Industries either. It is necessary to mention here that every person who had or has an interest in the suit property is not a necessary party. The question of adding a party would only arise if the rights of a party are likely to be affected if he is not added as a party. It is necessary to mention here that every person who had or has an interest in the suit property is not a necessary party. The question of adding a party would only arise if the rights of a party are likely to be affected if he is not added as a party. When Agarwal Industries has no rights whatsoever on the property nor is there apprehension of their rights being affected, the question of them being impleaded as a party does not arise. 19. The contention that the Sale Deed document was invalid in view of the Sikkim State Rules, Registration of Document Rules, 1930 of the is now to be addressed. Rule 20 of the said Rule reads as follows; “20. All instruments required to be registered (Excepting a will) shall be produced within four months from the date of execution thereof, but if any instrument owing to unavoidable delay has not been presented within the time prescribed above, it would be lawful for the Registrar in cases where the delay in presentation has not exceeded ten times the amount of the proper registration fee such instrument may be accepted for registration.” If the document was not produced within four months from the date of execution for its registration thereof, it is not for the appellant to raise the issue but it was for the concerned authorities to have declined to accept the document or to register the said property or demand payment of fine. This was not resorted to. Therefore, this circumstance not being in the domain of the Appellant, the argument is devoid of merit and consequently discarded. 20. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, it concludes that Agarwal Industries is not a necessary party to the Title Suit. The finding of the learned Trial Court in each of the issues suffers from no infirmity and thus, warrants no interference. 21. Lacking in merit, the Appeal is dismissed and disposed of. 22. Stay granted by this Court vide Order dated 05.06.2017, stands vacated. 23. Copy of this Judgment be transmitted to the learned Trial Court for information. 24. Records be remitted forthwith. 25. No order as to costs.