HASEN ALI AND ORS. Vs. SOLIMUDDIN S.K. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision assails the order dated 9.6.81 passed by Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 378/80 rejecting the Petitioners application to implead them in the suit as party Defendants. The suit is between the Respondent No. 1. Solimuddin SK, as Plaintiff and the State of Assam, as the Defendant for a decree directing the State of Assam to issue orders in favour of the Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) for allowing them to cut and remove 26 Sal trees and for releasing 13 felled trees from the land under Khatian No. 102 of village Jaipur Part I under Bilasipara Circle on declaration that the said trees are the absolute properties of the Plaintiff. The Khatian is in the name of the Plaintiff -Respondent No. 1 in respect of 17B OK 10 Leaches of land in Dags Nos. 238, 279, 334 and 336 and the aforesaid trees are on that land. The Petitioners applied for their being impleaded as Defendants on the ground that the land was khas land but under their possession, whereas the Plaintiff -Respondent No. 1, who obtained a khatian, was not in possession of that land and that he obtained the khatian by misrepresentation of facts. The learned Munsiff, after bearing both the sides, rejected the application observing that the certified copies of the khatian; produced by the Plaintiff -Respondent showed his possession and as such the land could neither be khas being under khatian nor there was material to show that the land was under possession of the Petitioners.

(2.) MR . P.N. Goswami, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners having been directly interested in the Sal trees standing on the land under their possession, the learned Munsiff erred in refusing to implead them.

(3.) UNDER Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, be struck out and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. It is, therefore, necessary to scrutinise the nature of the Petitioners' right vis a vis the suit. On their own showing the Petitioners have not obtained any khatian nor is there any statement to the effect that they have applied for any khatian. Their statement is only that they are in possession. More possession, even if true, of Government khas land, does not creates any right vis a vis the State until the State settled the land with him or them. Till such a settlement is made his right may remain inchoate or contingent depending on the future event of settlement. In the instant case the Plaintiff -Respondent No. 1 having already obtained settlement in respect of the land, it cannot also be said that the Petitioner prima facie have any inchoate or even contingent right until that khatian is cancelled. This is not a suit for cancellation of the khatian. The suit is for declaration of entitlement to the standing as well as felled Sal trees. So far this dispute is concerned the Petitioners cannot be regarded as necessary parties in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.