Plaintiff has come up in appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 16.11.99 passed by District Judge Rajgarh in C.S. No. 11A/96 whereby, the learned lower appellate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal filed by defendant against the judgment and decree rendered by C.J. Class II Zirapur in C.S. No. 68A/91 dt. 2.2.96. By impugned order, the learned District Judge has been pleased to set aside the decree which was under challenge before him in the appeal and has remanded the case to trial Judge by asking the plaintiff and the State to be the necessary party in the suit. In short, the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal need mention. Dispute relates to a small piece of land and a hut constructed on it bearing survey No. 1342/2 measuring 30x20 in Tahsil Jirapur. Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit being C.S. No. 68A/91 for a declaration of her title over the land. According to plaintiff, she got the aforesaid piece of land from State treating her to be a land lady under the 'M.P. Nagariya Chetron ke Bhoomiheen Vyakti Pattadharti Adhakaro Ka Pradan Kiya Jana Adhiniyam, 1984' for short Act. It was alleged that she is in possession of land for more than 12 years and hence also acquired the rights of ownerships. It was then alleged that on 25.7.91, the defendant Chief Nagar Palika Adhikari of Nagar Panchayat Zirapur served the plaintiff to vacate the said land and hence need arose to file suit to claim declaration and injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in her possession. The defendant while denying the allegations alleged that plaintiff is in fact a trespasser over the suit land, that no patta was ever given to plaintiff nor any settlement has taken place. The defendant defended their action in issuing a notice dt. 25.7.91 and prayed for dismissal of suit. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and, therefore, defendant (respondent herein) filed first appeal to District Judge out of which this appeal arises. The learned District Judge by impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by trial Judge. In his opinion, State was a necessary party to the suit, and hence no trial could take place muchless decree be passed without first joining the State as one of the defendant. The learned District Judge by impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by trial Judge. In his opinion, State was a necessary party to the suit, and hence no trial could take place muchless decree be passed without first joining the State as one of the defendant. In other words in the opinion of learned District Judge, State was necessary party to suit particularly in the context of the provisions of Act. It was essentially on this ground that the learned District Judge was persuaded to remand the case directing the plaintiff to make the state as one of the defendant. It was also observed that if any other person wished to join as party in the suit, he may do so. It is against this order the plaintiff has felt aggrieved and has filed this appeal. Heard Shri A.S. Thakur L/c for appellant (plaintiff) and Shri B.L. Pawecha Sri. Counsel with Shri Yogesh Mittal L/c for respondent (defendant). While attacking the very approach of the learned District Judge in deciding the appeal L/c for the appellant urged that impugned order suffers from apparent jurisdictional error both on facts and in law. According to L/c there was neither any need nor occasion to set aside the decree either on merits or for remanding the case to trial Court. According to L/c, in no case it could be either held or remanded on the ground that State is necessary party. L/c urged that looking to the issue involved in the suit which lie in a very narrow compass, there was no occasion for the Court to compel the plaintiff to include State as one of defendant as according to L/c the presence of State in the facts of case was not at all necessary. In substance the submission was that State is neither necessary nor proper party in the suit and reliance placed on the provisions of Act to hold the State as necessary party is totally misplaced. L/c in conclusion urged that impugned judgment be set aside and case remanded to learned District Judge to hear and decide the appeal on merits. L/c for respondent supported the impugned order and urged that no interference is called for and secondly the interest of plaintiff is fully safe guarded even after the remand is directed. L/c in conclusion urged that impugned judgment be set aside and case remanded to learned District Judge to hear and decide the appeal on merits. L/c for respondent supported the impugned order and urged that no interference is called for and secondly the interest of plaintiff is fully safe guarded even after the remand is directed. Having heard the L/c for the parties, I am of the considered view that impugned order is not sustainable and has to be set aside. The short question that is involved in the suit out of which first appeal before the District Judge arose was whether plaintiff has any title to the suit land or she is a trespasser as alleged by defendant in their notice dt. 25.7.91. To decide this issue one way or other, the presence of State is not necessary. The plaintiff to support her title may have relied on the provisions of the Act. But that does not mean that the controversy in suit is governed by the Act. If the plaintiff has been granted patta under the Act then it is for the plaintiff to file it and prove her title. If the plaintiff fails to prove her title, the suit has to fail for want of evidence of title. I, therefore, fail to appreciate as to how and on what basis, the State becomes necessary party in such type of suit. Reliance was placed by learned District Judge in para 15 in the case of 1991 Revenue Nirnaya 332 Vijan v. Dughdha Utpadak Sahakari Sangh to support his conclusion is totally misreading of the ratio of the said case, which even the learned Judge noticed. That was a case where the plaintiff was claiming his easementary rights over the Government land. It was in that context, the High Court held that if the claim is based on easementary rights against the State in respect of Government land then the State may be necessary party. The present is not a case where the parties are contesting any case relating to easementary rights. Yet another infirmity is discernable from the impugned order. It is held while remanding the case that any person wish to join the case, he may be do so. I fail to appreciate the logic behind this indulgence granted to a public at large in joining in a suit filed by the plaintiff to prove her title. Yet another infirmity is discernable from the impugned order. It is held while remanding the case that any person wish to join the case, he may be do so. I fail to appreciate the logic behind this indulgence granted to a public at large in joining in a suit filed by the plaintiff to prove her title. This is not a suit in representative capacity, nor it relates to any public office nor it involves any public cause or injury where the public can participate. There was, therefore, absolutely no occasion for the learned Judge to make such observation. It being a settled principle of law that plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be forced to join a person in his suit unless law requires their presence for proper adjudication of the lis involved in suit. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to District Judge to decide the appeal on merits. The learned District Judge will confine its inquiry while deciding the appeal on merits as to whether the decree passed by the trial Court is sustainable or not on facts and in law ? No cost.