Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an appeal by Thakur Laxman Singh against the judgment of the District Judge Pali, and has arisen in the following circumstances:

2. Laxman Singh brought a suit against Jujar Singh in the court of Civil Judge, Sirohi, for possession of certain property and mesne profits. The case of Laxman Singh was that the parties were descendants of a common ancestor named Vijai Singh who was jagirdar of Bhatana. Vijai Singh had three sons, one of whom died childless. The remaining sons were Sabal Singh and Surajmal. Sabal Singh succeeded to the jagir, and Surajmal was given two-fifths share of the jagir after an arbitration and compromise in Svt. 1963. Thus the jagirdar had three-fifths of the jagir, and the junior branch had two-fifths. This state of affairs continued till Svt. 1944 when disputes again arose between the jagirdar and members of the junior branch when certain orders were passed by the then Ruler of Sirohi. In 1925 there were again disputes between the parties, and the entire matter was referred, with the permission of His Highness the Maharaja Saheb of Sirohi, to the arbitration of five Panchas, the Maharaja being the Sarpanch. The arbitrators gave an award on the 12th July, 1927, which finally and conclusively determined the rights of the parties. The jagir was partitioned, and separate shares were allotted to the two branches and the plaintiff came in possession of his share which was given in schedule B attached to the plaint. This continued till 1948 when Her Highness the Dowager Maharani Saheba set aside the decision of the 12th July, 1937, by an order passed on the 20th November, 1948, in consequence whereof certain properties, which were in the possession of the plaintiff, were handed over to the defendant. These properties were mentioned in schedule C, and the plaintiffs suit was for possession of these properties. He alleged that the order of Her Highness the Dowager Maharani, dated the 20th of November, 1948, was of no force and void for the following reasons—

(1) Her Highness as Raj Mata had no powers whatsoever;

(2) The matter was never decided by the Board of Regency and not referred to the other members thereof,

(3) The order of the sovereign ruler cannot be set aside or questioned by any authority whatsoever other than a sovereign ruler himself;

(4) The order could only be set aside by means of a proper proceeding before a competent court of law, and the Raj Mata Saheba was not a court;

(5) That proper procedure and rules of natural justice were not followed by Her Highness the Raj Mata Saheba in setting aside the award.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant, and as many as 22 issues were framed by the Civil Judge. When the case came for hearing in that court, it was suggested that 12 issues may be decided first as that was a convenient course. The Civil Judge therefore decided these twelve issues. One of these issues was whether the Government of Rajasthan was a necessary party to the suit. There were also a number of issues about whether the order of the Raj Mata Saheba, dated 20th November, 1948, was by a sovereign authority, and therefore could not be questioned in a court of law. The Civil Judge decided that the Government was not a necessary party. He also came to the conclusion that the order, dated 20th November, 1948, could not be questioned in a court of law. He, therefore, dismissed the suit.

4. There was an appeal to the District Judge. He decided only one issue, namely whether the Government was a necessary party, and held that it was a necessary party. He, therefore, ordered that it was necessary that the Government should be made a party for the right and correct decision of the suit, and that the suit be remanded for getting the plaint amended in the light of his observations, and for proceeding with it afresh according to law. The plaintiff has come in appeal to this court, and his contention is that the Government is not a necessary party, and the order of the District Judge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document