Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. While admitting this appeal, this Court had framed the following substantial questions of law:

(i) whether in the facts and circumstance of the case the State of Bihar was a necessary party in view of the facts that the State did not itself claim any right, title and interest in the suit property ?

(ii) Whether, in any event, the plaintiffs relief relating to the declaration of title and confirmation of possession would have been considered even in absence of order of the Circle Officer?

2. Notice was issued to the respondents, but in spite of service of notice, nobody appeared and therefore this appeal has been taken up for hearing in absence of the respondents.

3. The Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs appellants suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and no relief can be granted in absence of the said party.

4. The appellants were the plaintiffs. They filed Title Suit No. 55/80 in the Trial Court praying relief for declaration of title and confirmation of possession as also for declaration that the order of eviction passed by the Circle Officer in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 3/1979-80 dated 18-8-79 is wholly without jurisd