JUDGMENT :

1. This Second Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22-2-2020 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat (M. P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 404A/2015 arising out of judgment and decree dated 30-9-2015 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-I, Waraseoni, District Balaghat in Civil Suit No. 59-A/2013.

2. The appellant is the defendant.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of damages caused due to illegal cutting of trees as well as for permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Dalja is the forefather of the plaintiffs. He had Khasra No. 33/1 area 1.198 hectares situated in village Lalpur, Tahsil Waraseoni, District Balaghat.

4. The family tree is as under :

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Tejram, who represents the family of Karu has alienated a part of Khasra No. 33 to Ramdas and the remaining land belongs to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had planted trees and were taking care of the same. About 4-5 months back, the defendants No. 4 and 5 insisted for demarcation and accordingly, the plaintiffs filed an application before the Court of Tahsildar, Waraseoni. Information of demarcation was given to the defendant No. 3. On 25-2-2013, the other defendants, on the instructions of defendants No. 2 to 5, started cutting trees, which were standing on the disputed land. The plaintiffs tried to stop them but the defendants No. 4 and 5 assured that till the demarcation is done, the cut wood/trees would be kept in a safe custody. On 12-3-2013, the Revenue Inspector and Patwari carried out the demarcation in the presence of the defendant No. 5 and the Forest Guard. The defendant No. 5 signed the Demarcation Panchnama with an endorsement that he does not agree with the same. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sent a notice under section 80 of Civil Procedure Code. It was found by the plaintiffs that 34 trees of Saja, 5 trees of Dhawda, 93 trees of Sinhana and 50 trolleys of wood total worth Rs. 1 Lakh have been illegally cut by the defendants No. 2 to 5 and accordingly, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/-

6. The defendants No. 1 to 5 filed their written statement and claimed that they have not cut the trees, which were standing on Khasra No. 33/1. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs themselves have cut the trees. It was pleaded that by notification dated 30-1-1979, Khasra No. 1 to 10, 14 to 16, 22, 25, 37, 38 to 49, 70/179 total area 560.56 hectares was declared as forest land. After the notification, the demarcation of the said land was carried out and the plantation was done in the year 2008. Since, the residents of Lalpur and the plaintiffs are in habit of illegal cutting of trees from the forest area, which is being objected by the defendants No. 2, 4 and 5 accordingly, the suit has been filed with dishonest intention.

7. The trial Court by framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit.

8. The respondents being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court preferred an appeal, which has been decreed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 22-2-2020 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 404A/2015.

9. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court with regard to the fact that the plaintiffs had planted the trees and were lawful owner of the same is false. The State Government was a necessary party in a suit against the public servant for damages or other reliefs. It was further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that since, the suit was filed before expiry of two months from the date of service of notice under section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, therefore, the suit was premature and accordingly, proposed the following substantial questions of law :

“I. Whether, the finding of the learned appellate