An error of law that is apparent on the face of the record and goes to the root of the matter can be corrected by the High Court under Article 227.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 216 and 227 of the Constitution and is directed against the decision of the Board of Revenue in a suit filed in the Revenue Courts by the petitioner No. 1, the respective fathers of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and opponent No. 4 for possession of the agricultural holding in question situated in mouja Rajota, Pargana Khachrod.

( 2 ) THE circumstances giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated as below:

( 3 ) ON 20-2-1949 the four sons of one Moti namely Badshah, Koora, Dhanna and gajja filed a suit under Sections 325 and 326 of Kanoon Mal Gwalior for possession of the agricultural holding in suit situated in Mouja Rajota. The suit was filed against Fakka. Their claim for possession was based on the allegations that Morusi rights in the suit lands had been acquired by them from the then Zamindar of rajota one Nagu on payment of Rs. 300/- as Nazarana; that in the year following this acquisition one Pyarelal became the Zamindar of the Patti which included this land; that he, taking advantage of the fact that one of the brothers namely Koora was in his service, influenced him and obtained from him a Kabuliat in respect of this land for the Samvat Years 2001 and 2002 and granted a corresponding Patta in the name of Koora; that in spite of this all the four brothers continued to occupy the land and cultivated the same for the benefit of all of them; that Zamindar pyarelal did not give any notice to them as required by law prior to Samvat Year 2003 but that in that year respondent Fakka obtained unlawful possession of the suit land by committing trespass. On these facts they claimed back possession from Fakka.

( 4 ) FAKKA by his written statement contended that he had been put into possession by the Zamindar Pyarelal. He further contended that the Zamindar was a necessary party to this suit and ought to be joined for in his absence the suit would be bad.

( 5 ) THE Tehsildar Khachrod before whom the suit was filed held by his order dated 23-3-1951 that Pyarelal should have been joined. A direction for his joinder was consequently given by him. In pursuance of this direction the plaintiffs joined him as a party. When Pyarelal was served he appeared and contended that the suit against him had become barred by limitation and ought therefore to fail as a whole. This contention of Pyarelal was upheld by the Tehsildar and the suit was dismissed as being barred by time.

( 6 ) IT is not disputed on either side that in ease Pyarelal is considered a necessary party to the suit in the sense that in his absence the plaintiffs could not get any effective relief then the suit would fail as a whole by the lapse of time in view of the provisions contained in Section 409 of the Kanoon Mal which is not dissimilar to Section 22 of the Limitation Act.

( 7 ) MR. Sanghi for the petitioner contended that the petitioners had brought the present suit for possession alleging that the principal defendant Fakka alias Fakira had entered into possession by committing trespass and dispossessed them although they were in possession as Morusi tenants. The petitioners' case may be good or weak on merits but in case the plaintiffs succeed in establishing their claim as Morusi tenants of the Zamindar and the alleged act of trespass by Fakka there is no legal impediment for their obtaining relief of possession. It may be, he urged that in order to effectually and completely decide all questions in controversy between the parties whether arising out of plaintiff's case or the defence put forward and to avoid multiplicity of actions another person could be joined. But joinder of such a person though considered essential for the above purpose cannot be said to be an indispensable condition for the plaintiff to obtain any effective relief. Such a person, it is urged, would merely be a proper party and not a necessary party. If such a proper party is joined after the period of limitation the suit cannot fail in spite of