KISHORSINGH ANARSINGH Vs. TEJ SINGH DHVANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMONG the various grounds urged in this application the only one on which it was admitted for hearing was whether Government should be impleaded either as a necessary party or at least as a proper party. As it appears, the respondent is not keen on impleading Government unless there is an express order by this Court to this effect. The question is whether it is a necessary party: the parties have argued this case on that basis, The question before us is: "whether in a suit for the setting aside of the revenue sale for the realisation of Government dues, the Government should also be impleaded along with the auction purchaser?"

(2.) THE opposite party owing some dues to the Government on account of takabi and having defaulted the latter look steps under the Madhya Pradesh Land revenue Code to attach and sell in the revenue Court certain agricultural land belonging to the former. Sufficient opportunity was afforded to him to make a deposit of the dues; but he failed. Accordingly delivery of possession was given by the revenue Court and the auction purchaser entered. Thereupon the defaulter brought this suit ostensibly for restoration of possession, but actually for the setting aside of the revenue sale or a declaration that it was void and inoperative accordingly issues have been framed. The position of the defendant-auctionpurchaser is that unless the certificate-holder-Government is impleaded he will have no remedy against it in the event of the sale being set aside. He has paid the certificate dues to Government and unless he is in a position to recover them as of right any decision in this suit is apt to be grossly unjust. It appears that in certain states the local revenue sale laws expressly provide that whenever a sale is set aside by a Court, Government should refund the amotnt to the auction-purchaser: but it is common ground that there is no such provision in the statute itself or statutory rules governing the revenue sales in this State. Accordingly we are dealing with one dispute between the plainliff-dcfauller. the government (claiming the dues against the plaintiff) and the auction-purchaser who has deposited the money in the revenue Courl which in its turn has been appropriated by Government, and again another in the suit between the defaulter and the auction-purchaser. On the face of it, it would appear that the certificateholder-Government is a necessary parly because the controversy cannot be fully or justly decided in its absence; any decision passed is bound to affect the interests of Government also and in its absence from the case it cannot be enforced.

(3.) THE defendant has cited Umed Mal v. Chand Mal, AIR 1926 PC 142, for the elucidation of the general principle that a party from which one of the litigants derives the title has to be impleaded as a necessary party. There the question was, whether the mortgagor from whom the plaintiff was claiming had actually included the suit property in the mortgage; but the Courl had proceeded to decide it without impleading this mortgagor. It was held to be a material irregularity. The more recent case reported in Chenthiperumal Pillai v. D. M. Devasahayam. AIR 1956 Trav-Co 181 (FB), is very much to the point here. In that case there was a revenue sale but subsequently the Government set it aside; thereupon the purchaser brought a suit. He did not implead the Government and the High Courl held in revision that-"when a Government order setting aside a revenue sale is sought to be cancelled in a suit, the Sirkar is a necessary parly to the suit as no decree can be passed without the presence of the Sirkar on the party array. " In the instant case the suit is for the setting aside of the revenue sale which has been confirmed and implemented by Government and by the same logic the certificate-holder Government is a necessary party.