This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam Districts, Gauhati, who, on appeal, confirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsiff at Mangaldoi. (2) The plaintiff claimed in his plaint that he obtained settlement of the land from the Revenue authorities, and that a patta was issued to him by the Sub-Deputy Collector in the year 1956. Based on this he asked for a declaration of title and for possession of the suit properties, which are 22 Dighas in extent. (3) It would appear that the suit lands were originally settled with the All-India Tea and Trading Company, Ltd., pro forma defendant No. 16, by the Government, and that a patta was given to them several years before the issue of the patta in favour of the plaintiff. It would also appear that the All-India Tea and Trading Company, Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the Company') had parcelled out these lands into small plots and handed them over to the defendants Nos. 1 to 13 at one time and to the defendants Nos. 14 and 15 later. But as the creation of rights in third parties was opposed, as it was -contrary to the terms of the annual patta granted to the Company, the Government apparently cancelled the same and grant-fid the patta in favour of the plaintiff. (4) The defendants contended in the written statement that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties, as they were in possession of different plots of land and that there should have been separate suits, one suit against each of the defendants in respect of the plot of land in his possession. They further claimed that they had improved the land and cultivated it and that they would be entitled to compensation for that reason, before they are asked to vacate the land. (5) On these pleadings a number of issues were framed by the trial Court, namely, the Munsiff of Mangaldai. On the issue relating to misjoinder and non-joinder of parties and causes of action, the Munsiff found against the defendants. On the question whether the defendants were entitled to notice to quit, the learned Munsiff held that they were in possession as trespassers, and hence, there was no question of serving any notice on them.
On the issue relating to misjoinder and non-joinder of parties and causes of action, the Munsiff found against the defendants. On the question whether the defendants were entitled to notice to quit, the learned Munsiff held that they were in possession as trespassers, and hence, there was no question of serving any notice on them. On the question whether the allotment of the suit land to the plaintiff by the Revenue authorities was regular and proper, the learned Munsiff observed that this issue was not pressed by the defendants. On issue No. 7 relating to payment of compensation to defendants, the learned Munsiff found that no compensation is payable by the plaintiff to the defendants. Incidentally, the learned Munsiff observed that the land was taken by the pro forma defendant on thicka bandobast and, therefore, the defendants were not tenants. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the decision of the learned Munsiff without interfering with the findings. Hence the present appeal. (6) The only point that Mr. Sen, the learned counsel for the appellants seriously argued before me is "that the appellants were adhiars. They had the rights of adhiars in them and any attempt to evict them or liquidate those rights can be done only under the Assam Adhiars Protection and Regulation Act, as that Act affords protection to them against any infringement of the rights of an adhiar. Accordingly, it was contended that the present suit in the Civil Court is incompetent. Mr. Sen further contended that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties as different defendants were in possession of different parts of land and they should have been separately sued. He further argued that the patta in favour of the plaintiff had been cancelled subsequent to the decision of the Court below and during the pendency of this appeal, and that that order of cancellation should be taken note of by this Court as a subsequent event and if this is done, the very foundation of the plaintiff's claim would have been found to be not .present and the plaintiff's suit on that ground would be liable to be dismissed.
(7) As regards the objection taken on the ground of misjoinder, I see no reason to disagree with the findings reached by the Courts below, having regard particularly to the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure contained in Order 1, Rule 9, which clearly lays down that no suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. It may, however, be stated in this context that as the defendants claimed to have derived rights under the pro forma defendant No. 16, who was said to have been issued the patta by the Government and the suit is in respect of the land covering 22 bighas and not based on causes of action relating to separate parts of land in the separate possession of the defendants, there is absolutely no substance in the contention of the defendants with regard to misjoinder of parties. (8) As regards the objection that the defendants appellants were adhiars and, therefore, entitled to the protection under the Assam Adhiars Protection and Regulation Act, 1948 (Assam Act 12 of 1948), it was pointed out by Mr. Barooah, the learned counsel for the respondents, that when no plea in support of the present contention has been taken in the written statement, and no issue has been framed consequently thereon, in regard to this plea. It is well-known principle of law and procedure, and repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court that no amount of evidence can be looked into on a plea not put forward in the pleadings, and no finding could on such evidence be reached. It was, therefore, wrong on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to have embarked on an investigation into the contention of the appellants before him in regard to the plea that the defendants were adhiars and entitled to protection under the Assam Act 12 of 1948. It may be pointed ou1 in this connection that the Assam Act 12 o) 1948 applies only to the rights inter se amount the landlord and the adhiar-tenants and has no application as such to the rights of a third party, who in his own independent rights, car evict the persons in possession.
It may be pointed ou1 in this connection that the Assam Act 12 o) 1948 applies only to the rights inter se amount the landlord and the adhiar-tenants and has no application as such to the rights of a third party, who in his own independent rights, car evict the persons in possession. Another point which may have to be considered, although it is not in the context necessary to do so, is whether the Assam Act 12 of 1948 applies to all to the land owned by Government, inasmuch as the definition of the word 'adhiar' seems to indicate that it only applies to the relationship of landlord and tenant, that is, between a private owner and a tenant whose relations depend on the system of paying the produce in a certain proportion. These matters, of course are academic in this case and it is unnecessary to give a specific finding on these matters Suffice it to say that as there was no plea taken in the written statement on the basis that the defendants were adhiars, no relief could be given to them on that basis, apart from the fact, as already pointed out, that the question of rights of an adhiar would not arise when third party's rights are concerned. (9) In the result, I see no justification to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Court below. The judgment and decree under appeal are affirmed and this appeal is dismissed. In the entire circumstances I do not wish to make any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed