A suit shall not be defeated for non-joinder or misjoinder of parties if the court can deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it.

JUDGEMENT :- The Plaintiff claims that he is a poor school teacher. He sued for getting khas possession on declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit property. He claims that he purchased the suit land appertaining to Jote No. 72 of Mouja Doulbari, P.S. Sabroom from Jibananda Ghosh, the owner of the suit property by a registered sale dated 10-4-1962 and continued to possess the same. On the eastern and western sides of the suit land there are Government khas tillas. The predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff possessed some tilla slopes and included them within Jote No. 72 and possessed the same for more than 12 pears. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased Jote No. 72 land and also the tilla slope lands and continued his act of possession. He claimed that the land measured 2 Kanis and 7 gandas in Jote No. 72. During the absence of the plaintiff the Defendant ploughed over his land on 21-4-1962 A. D. (8-1-1369 B. S.) and dispossessed him from the land. In due course the land appertaining to Jote No. 72 was measured and found to be 11 gandas and 1 kara of land. The Plaint was amended accordingly. As such, the suit land measured 1 kara 11 gandas in Dag No. 2221 appertaining to Jote No. 72. The Defendant contested the suit, took up several grounds and claimed that the suit land did not appertain to Jote No. 72 of the plaintiff. The Defendant, inter alia, stated in the written statement

"If any Amin or experienced man measures the land on the spot he will find that the land in suit is outside the said Jote No. 72 of the pltff. ....... As the land in suit has been turned into an excellent paddy land after reclamation it has become a very valuable piece of property and the pltff. of this suit, taking advantage of his being owner over the land of said Jote No. 72 standing to the contiguous west of the land in suit, has brought up this false and groundless suit with a view to grab the valuable allotted land of the answering defdt. ..................... ". (Underscored by me).

According to the defendant, he came as a refugee in 1950 A. D. from the then East Pakistan and was allotted 3 kanis of Government khas land which lay contiguous east of Jote No. 72. It is worthwhile to mention at this stage that, inter alia, the defendant took up the plea reading "The pltffs. suit is bad and untenable for the defect of non-joinder of party". There is nothing in the written statement as to who were those parties for whose absence the suit was bad or untenable.

2. The main issue framed was :

"Does the suit land appertain to jote No. 72 of mouja Doulbari under Sabroom P.S. or Government Khas land allotted to defdt. in the year 1961 A.D.?

In order to arrive at the conclusion the learned Munsiff considered the order dated 5-5-1969 passed by his predecessor accepting the Commissioners report and documents, namely, Exts. C-1, C-2 and C-3 and Exts. A-1 (Khatian) and A-2 and has held that the suit land is 11 gandas 1 kranta of Dag No. 2221. When the land was so measured the plaintiff gave up his claim in respect of the rest of the suit land. The learned Munsiff on perusal of the evidence arrived at the conclusion that the said suit land measuring 11 gandas 1 kranta in Dag No. 2221 appertains to Jote No. 72 which had been purchased by the plaintiff and was not the land which was allotted to the defendant. As such, as desired by the defendant the suit land was measured by a Commissioner and the report of the Commissioner is that the suit land was never allotted to the defendant but was the purchased land of the plaintiff appertaining to Jote No. 72.

The learned Munsiff has held that the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land, the defendant never acquired any right or title by adverse possession nor the suit was barred by limitation. He found the plaintiffs story of possession and dispossession to be true and that there was no non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit as prayed for by the