The necessity of the State Government as a party in suits challenging revenue sales under the Revenue Recovery Act is established.

1. This appeal is against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate court remitting the suit. O. S. No. 56 of 1969 to the trial court for fresh disposal.

2. The plaintiff, appellant herein, filed suit for a declaration that the revenue sale held on 16-12-1968 in respect of the suit property which belonged to him is void and for an injunction restraining the defendant, the purchaser of the property in that revenue sale, from taking delivery of the property. The plaintiff's case is that he had no arrears of land revenue or loan arrears, that in fact he had paid amounts in excess of the land revenue due by him, that by some mistake the suit property had been sold for recovery of certain alleged arrears of land revenue, that he had no notice of the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, that there was in fact no proclamation regarding the sale of the properties and, therefore, the revenue sale is null and void and not binding on him. In that suit, neither the State Government nor the officers who brought the property to sale have been made parties, but the suit has been filed only against the auction purchaser, the respondent herein.

3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that since the validity of the revenue sale has been questioned on the ground that there was no arrears of land revenue, and that there was irregularity in the publication and the conduct of the sale, the State Government is a necessary party to the suit, that as the revenue sole has not also been confirmed in his favour on the date of the suit, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant also contended that there must be a prayer for setting aside the revenue sale, and the relief by way of a declaration that the revenue sale is null and void cannot be granted and that there was in fact arrears of land revenue, that there was due service of notice on the plaintiff before the sale, that there was due proclamation in the village and that there is no irregularity in the publication and conduct of the revenue sale as alleged by the plaintiff.

4. The trial court, on a consideration of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff is barred by the principles of res judicata from contending that there are no arrears of land revenue due by him to the Government in view of an earlier decision in O. S. 192 of 1966 wherein it has been held that the plaintiff was in arrears to the extent of Rs. 1222-18. It however held that no reliable proof has been adduced by the defendant to show that there was wide publicity in the village as provided under S.22 and S.39 of the Revenue Recovery Act, and that in any event the sale of the suit property which are valuable wet lands of an extent of 2-17 acres with 63 coconut trees and a motor shed for recovery of an arrears of Rs. 1826.98 has also contravened S.14 and S.44 of the Revenue Recovery Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and that the price fetched is grossly inadequate and therefore the revenue sale of the suit property is illegal. The trial court had taken the view that though the validity of the revenue sale of the suit property has been questioned in the suit, the State Government is not a necessary party and that even if the State Government is a necessary party, the suit cannot be dismissed on that sole ground but the court has to decide the matter in controversy so far as it concerns the rights and liabilities of the parties before it. It also held that there need not be a specific prayer for setting aside the revenue sale and a prayer for a declaration that the sale is null and void is quite sufficient. The trial court, therefore, granted the relief to the plaintiff by way of a declaration that t