SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF WEST GODAVARI Vs. SREE RAJAH MALRAJU VENKATA NARASIMHA RAO BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of suits under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act.

(2.) The position in these two suits is a very curious one. The plaintiff was the same in the two suits and, before they were actually filed, he seems to have come to some arrangement with the two second defendants; for they filed no written statement. The common first defendant was the Secretary of State; and all the issues were framed because of the written statement of the first defendant. The trial Court found that the Secretary of State was not a necessary party; and while decreeing the suits, as the second defendant in each case did not oppose, ordered that the first defendant be given his costs on the ground that he was not a necessary party.

(3.) The appeals were heard by two Judges. In A.S. No. 233 of 1936, the Judge held that the Secretary of State was not a necessary party; but that his attitude in supporting the case of the second defendant and joining issue with the plaintiff disentitled him to receive costs. He thought, moreover, that although the Secretary of State was not a necessary party, he was a proper party. In A.S. No. 188 of 1936 (S.A. No. 262 of 1937) the principal Subordinate Judge found that the first defendant was a necessary party in each case. The appeals of the plaintiff against the orders as to costs were allowed and the Government was ordered to pay its own costs in both Courts in both suits.