Necessary party rule bars declaratory suit over State land when the State is not impleaded.

Where a suit seeks declaratory relief affecting proprietary rights in land admittedly belonging to the State, the State is a necessary party and the action cannot proceed without its joinder. The Supreme Court applied Section 79, read with Order 27 Rule 1 and the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 CPC, to hold that a declaration impacting State-owned land directly affects the State's interest. The view that no relief was claimed against the State was rejected as erroneous, because the declaration itself would alter the State's rights in the property. The suit was therefore not maintainable for non-joinder of a necessary party.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State of Haryana was a necessary party to the suit seeking declaration of rights over land admittedly belonging to the State, and whether the suit was maintainable in its absence.

Analysis: The suit sought declaration of rights in land owned by the State of Haryana. Under Section 79, read with Order 27 Rule 1 and the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where relief is sought against the State, the State is a necessary party. A declaration affecting proprietary rights over State land could not be granted without impleading the owner of the land. The finding that no relief was claimed against the State was held to be erroneous, because the declaration itself directly affected the State's interest in the land.

Conclusion: The State of Haryana was a necessary party, and the suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit seeking declaratory relief affecting rights in land belonging to the State, the State is a necessary party and the suit cannot proceed in its absence.

---