KESA Vs. DANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the counsel for the both the parties as well as the Government Advocate.

(2.) It was urged on behalf of the appellants that the observation of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority to the effect that a prior notice under sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was indispensable and that the suit therefore suffered from this defect, was not warranted by law.

(3.) This point had been initially raised on behalf of the respondents before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and it was pointed out that to every suit for the division of holdings under sec. 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act all the co -tenants and the land holders shall be made parties. Accordingly in the present case the Government as the landholder was a necessary party and the manner of giving notice to the Government, it was argued, had been laid in sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and if the provisions of sec. 80 C.P.C. were not followed it would vitiate the trial and would be fatal to the case. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated this plea before us and cited AIR 1943 Madras 284, Province of Madras, represented by District. Collector, Vizagapatam Vs. Shri Sri Sri Vikrama Deo Varma Maharajulungaru, Maharaja of Jeypore and Zamindar of Madgole in which it was observed that: