Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's special appeal. It arises out of a suit for ejectment under Sec. 209, U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act.
(2.) THE plaintiff's case is that her husband was suffering from cancer. He Invited his relations Madho and Sukhdeo, respondents, to come and hello him in cultivation of his land. After the plain tiffs husband died, these respondents continued to cultivate and manage the land on behalf. of the plaintiff. Later, they turned dishonest and with a view (to deprive the plaintiff of her property, they instituted a suit (No. 71 of 1956) for an injunction against the plaintiff, in the Civil Court. The suit was carri ed to the High Court in appeal. The High Court on 1-8-1961 dismissed the suit, on the finding that the respon dents were merely managers and were in possession as licensees on behalf of (the plaintiff. They had no right or title to the land in dispute. During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff instituted the present suit on 10th October, 1957. for the ejectment of the respondents under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. The respondents contested the suffix In view of the pleadings of the parties', the trial court framed issues on 30th' November. 1957. One of the issues was- whether the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10. Civil I. P. C. The trial Court decided this issue In favour of the defendants and stayed the hearing of the suit till the disposal of the earlier suit for an injunction.
(3.) AFTER the dismissal of the suit for injunction on .1-8-1961 the hearing of the present suit commenced. While the suit was pending in the trial Court, the U. P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. 21 of 1962 came into force on 13th December, 1962, Section 9 of this Am ending Act introduced the following sub section (2) to Section 209:- "(2) To every suit relating to a land referred to in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) the State Government shall be impeded as necessary party." In view of this provision, the defendants on April 3. 1963, with the leave of the Court, amended their written statement. They pleaded that the suit was bad for failure to misruled the State of U. P and Gaon Sabha as parties. On the basis of this plea, the trial Court framed an ad ditional issue No. 7: "Whether the suit was defective on account of non joinder of the U. P. State and Gaon Sabha as parties.";