S. Chandrashekhar, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 16.5.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 1988 by which his application for impleadment in the title suit has been dismissed. Title Suit No. 23 of 1988 was instituted by Mody Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Others. In the suit, Bihar State Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Deoghar and Others have been made defendants. Claiming that the plaintiffs and defendants are in collusion and, in fact, the applicants are in actual physical possession of the suit properties, the petitioner along with his brother-Nawadhar Dhapra filed an application for their impleadment in the pending suit. This application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.5.2017.

2. Contending that the petitioner has a valuable interest in the suit property by virtue of his possession over the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proper party in the suit.

3. In the application dated 6.4.2017, the applicants have pleaded that over the suit land several other caste men are residing and a settlement has been made by Ghatwal of Rohini Estate in favour of their predecessors-in-interest, by virtue of which the applicants and others have acquired right, title and interest and possession over the suit properties. Except the petitioner and his brother, none of the so-called caste men have joined him. The applicants have not disclosed the boundary of the place over which they are in possession. A necessary party is the one in absence of whom the suit cannot be decided effectively and a proper party is the one in whose absence the suit cannot be decided fully and completely [refer, Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Another, reported in AIR 1963 SC 786]. In the title suit, which has been filed for a declaration of right, title and interest of Mody Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Others, on a pretention that the petitioner is in actual physical possession, without any corroboration, he is definitely not a necessary party. He is also not a proper party, for he is only claiming a possessory right over the suit property. In the above facts, finding no merit in the writ petition it is dismissed.