Mootham, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision. The plaintiff, who is the applicant in this Court, filed a suit for the ejectment of the defendant opposite party from a shop which he alleged he had purchased from one Mst. Ananti by a sale deed dated the 2nd October, 1937. The defendant denied the plaintiff's title. He -admitted that the shop had at one time belonged to Mst. Ananti but contended that after her death it had devolved upon her daughter's sons and that be Was their tenant.
(2.) THE trial court found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The defendant appealed and the lower appellate court, without going into the merits, remanded the case to the trial court with a direction that Mst. Ananti's daughter's sons should be impleaded as parties to the suit. The defendant had not sought to make the daughter's sons part ties to the suit nor had they made any application on their own behalf. The direction of the appellate court that they should be added as parties Was made of its own motion It is contended in this Court that in making that order the lower appellate court had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or that it had acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of it? jurisdiction. Looking at Order 1, rule 10 it is dear that the Court must, before it can say that the daughter's son? ought to be added as defendants, find either that they "ought to have been joined or that their presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely * to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit". In my opinion the daughter's eons were not necessary parties. In Rashi v. Sadashiv, I.L.R. 21 Bom. 229 Farran, C.J., delivering the judgment of the Court said. We consider that if the plaintiff in an ejectment suit can make out a legal title to land; he is entitled to maintain a suit against the person in actual juridical possession of such land for its recovery without making the person under whom the latter claims to hold a party to the suit.........It is enough for the plaintiff to sue the person in actual possession. It would be unfair upon him to couple him to add a party whom ha may know nothing and against whom he may have no cause of complaint, while the defendant by disclosing the name of the person under whom he claims can have him made at his own risk a defendant to the suit. With that view I respectfully agree. ' -But if the daughter's sons were not necessary parties were they proper parties ? Again I think not. In Kashi v. Sadashiv, I.L.R. 21 Bom. 229 (supra) the defendants in a suit for ejectment had contended that as they held the land in suit under an occupancy title conferred on them by Government the latter should be made a party,
(3.) ON this point the learned Chief Justice said: The most that can be said is that if Government made a party, the questions of issue between the plaintiff's and Government can be effectually tried and deters mined in this suit, but the plaintiffs do not ask that those questions shall be determined in this suit), and Government cannot be effected by the result of this suit; so that those questions may safely be left to be determined, if necessary, in future litigation.;