The State is not a necessary party in private disputes over khas land, and prior possessors can seek restoration from trespassers without involving the State.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Baran, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2019 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in connection with case no. Civil Misc. Appeal 01 of 2018 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura in case no. Civil Misc. 06 of 2005 arising out of Ex(T) 03 of 2020.

3. Facts in brief, are that, the appellants herein, being allottee were the possessors of the suit land. Out of some disputes the respondents had filed a suit against some persons who have challenged the title of the respondents. The said civil disputes were cropped up between them and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents. The suit land of that decree was put to execution by the present respondents. During execution proceeding when the bailiff of the court went to execute the decree, they dispossessed the present plaintiffs/appellants. Being dispossessed, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and recovery of khas possession of the suit land described in the plaint of the present suit. The respondents were impleaded as defendants. Having summoned by the court, they appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. Issues were framed. The parties had adduced their respective evidences. Having heard the learned counsels, learned trial court had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-appellants directing restoration of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land evicting the defendant-appellants. Challenging the said decree, the defendants i.e. the respondents of the present appeal had preferred first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. While deciding the said first appeal (Civil Misc. Appeal 1 of 2018), the learned first appellate court observed that the State of Tripura was a necessary party to the suit as because originally the land was a khas land and remanded the matter to the learned trial court directing the parties to implead State of Tripura as one of the defendants to the suit by judgment dated 03.07.2019. Against the said judgment and decree dated 03.07.2019, the plaintiffs had preferred the present second appeal before this court.

4. At the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated:

"(i) Whether the direction of the learned trial Judge remitting the matter back to the learned trial court holding that the State is necessary party is bad in law?

5. Having considered the submissions and considering the facts involved in the suit, in my opinion, the State of Tripura is not a necessary party. It is a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession. Whether it is a khas land or not or the manner under which the land was allotted to one of the parties i.e. the plaintiffs herein, or the defendants/respondents as the owner of the land, is the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs are to prove their case by adducing evidence and the defendants are to prove their title over the suit land by adducing appropriate evidences on their behalf.

6. Admitted fact is that the defendants had been dispossessed by the bailiff from the suit land while executing the decree in favour of the defendants in the former suit. However, it is the burden upon the plaintiffs to prove possession prior to their di