Necessary parties and finality prevent reopening a transfer challenge where the appeal is time-barred against omitted defendants.

An appellant cannot impeach a transfer or reopen benami findings in appeal where the original transferee and other necessary parties are absent and the finding in their favour has become final. Respondents claiming through that transferee may rely on the concluded finding, so it operates against the appellant. The appellate court also need not add omitted parties where they are not shown to be interested in the appeal and their decrees have already become final by limitation. Its further powers cannot be used to defeat accrued rights arising from finality and lapse of time. The appeal therefore failed on procedural grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant could challenge the validity of the transfer in the absence of the original transferee and other necessary parties in appeal, and whether the existing findings operated as res judicata against the respondents; (ii) whether the appellate court erred in refusing to add the omitted parties as respondents under the procedural rules and in declining to exercise its power to pass a decree against them notwithstanding the partial appeal.

Issue (i): whether the appellant could challenge the validity of the transfer in the absence of the original transferee and other necessary parties in appeal, and whether the existing findings operated as res judicata against the respondents

Analysis: The foundation of the defendants' title was the transfer in favour of the first transferee, and the decree of the court below had upheld that transfer. Because the first transferee had not been made a respondent, there was no appeal from the finding in his favour, and that finding had become final as between the appellant and the first transferee. The respondents, claiming through that transferee, were entitled to rely on that concluded finding. In the circumstances, the appellant could not be permitted to impeach the validity of the transfer or to reopen the issue of benami purchase so long as those findings remained undisturbed.

Conclusion: The appellant was barred from challenging the transfer in the absence of the necessary parties, and the finding in favour of the first transferee operated against the appellant and the respondents claiming through him.

Issue (ii): whether the appellate court erred in refusing to add the omitted parties as respondents under the procedural rules and in declining to exercise its power to pass a decree against them notwithstanding the partial appeal

Analysis: The omitted defendants had obtained decrees in their favour, and the time for appealing against those decrees had expired, giving them a substantive right to rely on finality and limitation. Under the provision corresponding to addition of parties, a person can be brought in only when he is interested in the result of the appeal, and the appellant failed to show such an interest on the part of the omitted defendants. The separate power of the appellate court to make any order which ought to have been made did not compel the court to deprive those defendants of the accrued benefit of limitation, and no sufficient reason was shown to interfere with the appellate court's exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The appellate court correctly refused to add the omitted parties and correctly declined to exercise its further powers to their prejudice.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on both procedural grounds and were dismissed with costs, leaving the decree of the court below undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellant cannot reopen a concluded finding or disturb the accrued rights of omitted parties in appeal where the necessary parties are absent, the appeal against them is time-barred, and the statutory test for adding them or granting further appellate relief is not satisfied.

---