Judgment A.K. Gohil, J. ( 1. ) This is second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 3.1.1995 passed by Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Dhar in regular Civil Appeal No.22A/86, whereby dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the decree dated 23.7.1986 granted by trial Court, i.e., Civil Judge Class-1, Kuchhi in Civil SuitNo.315A/84. ( 2. ) This second appeal was admitted on thefollowing questions of law :-"Whether in the present matter State of MP was a necessary party?" ( 3. ) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant / defendant and respondent / plaintiff are the real brothers. Respondent Radheshyam filed a suit for injunction stating therein that the agricultural land bearing survey nos. 209, 347, 348, 350, 360 and 361, having total area of 6.993 hect. situated at village Lohari Tehsil Kuchhi, was partitioned between both the brothers in the year of 1974 and the aforesaid land came into the share of plaintiff. After the partition the plaintiff is having possession over the entire land and doing agricultural operations thereon. It was further stated that the character of the appellant/defendant was not good and he has destroyed and transferred the properties, i.e., one house and agricultural land, which was given to him in partition and now he is not having any means of livelihood, therefore, he has started interfering in the property, which is in possession of the plaintiff. A prayer was made to grant a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. In the written statement it was admitted that the partition took place in 1974 but it was pleaded that half of the suit land was given in the share to the appellant/defendant and the defendant is also having possession over half of the land, therefore, the suit is bad in law and no decree for injunction can be granted on the land which is in possession of the appellant. The issues were framed, evidence of the parties was recorded and trial Court decreed the suit, against which First Appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed. ( 4. The issues were framed, evidence of the parties was recorded and trial Court decreed the suit, against which First Appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed. ( 4. ) I have noticed one important fact that none of the parties have stated in their pleadings about actual position in the revenue record that the aforesaid disputed lands are actually recorded in the revenue record in the name of Gopal Mandir and Collector is the Manager of the aforesaid temple and the status of both the appellant and respondent is of Pujari. This fact was mentioned in the order dated 2.2.1985 by which application for injunction was decided and thereafter in the order dated 1.5.1985 passed in appeal. This fact was also mentioned in the judgment and decree granted by trial Court on 23.7.1986. Plaintiff filed two documents Exts. P/4 and P/5. Ex. P/4 is the certified copy of khasra entries of the year 1983- 84, in which all the lands bearing khasra no.209, 347, 348, 350, 360 and 361 are recorded in the name of Gopal Mandir Lohari as a Bhumiswami and the names of appellant and respondent ha\e been mentioned as Pujari of the temple and name of the. Collector has been mentioned as the Manager. In Ex.P/5, which is, the khasra entry pertaining to the year 1980-81 to 1983-84, all the lands have been mentioned in the name of Gopal Mandir. From these two documents it is clear that the aforesaid lands are not the private properties as has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit and if the land is recorded in the name of Gopal Mandir then certainly there cannot be any partition between two brothers, unless the State Government or the Gopal Mandir is made party in the suit. In the impugned judgments both the Courts below have taken note of this fact that the lands are recorded in the name of Gopal Mandir as Bhumiswami, name of the parties have been mentioned as Pujari and this fact has also been mentioned that the Collector is the Manager of the aforesaid land, even then has not considered this aspect of the matter that if decree is granted without adding the State or idol as party, decree shall not be binding on them and shall be nullity to that extent. ( 5. ( 5. ) Now the germane question would be when the two brothers filed a suit without making State or idol as party and one party obtained a decree for injunction without proof of ownership of the property or without claiming any right therein or possession in the property, whether relief of injunction-can be granted in a suit or not. If the plaintiff is not in the exclusive ownership or possession over the property, certainly he cannot pray for injunction and if decree is granted then it would not be binding on temple property. In such circumstances if decree is obtained without adding the State and idol as party, it would be treated as granted in collusion. If in the revenue record the suit land is recorded in the name of Gopal Mandir, it cannot be held that either the plaintiff or the defendant is either owner or having possession thereof. Plaintiff himself has admitted in the plaint that in revenue record his status has been mentioned as of Pujari, therefore cannot either seek any partition or cannot obtain even a decree for injunction without adding the State and idol i.e. Gopal Mandir as a party in the suit. ( 6. ) In this case, Madhya Pradesh Amendment under Order I Rule 3-B CPC is very material, which has come into force w.e.f. 14.8.1984, which is reproduced as under:- "3B. Conditions for entertainment of suits.--(1) No suit or proceeding for, (a) declaration of title or any right over any agricultural land, with or without any other relief; or (b) specific performance of any contract for transfer of any agricultural land with or without any other relief, shall be entertained by any Court, unless the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, knowing or having reason to believe that a return under section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (No.20 of 1960) in relation to land aforesaid has been or is required to be filed by him or by any other person before competent authqnty appointed under the Act, has impleaded the State of Madhya Pradesh as one of the defendants or non-applicants, as the case may be, to such suit or proceeding. (2) No Court shall proceed with pending suit or proceeding referred to in sub-rule (1) unless, as soon as may be, the State Government is so impleaded as a defendant or non-applicant. (2) No Court shall proceed with pending suit or proceeding referred to in sub-rule (1) unless, as soon as may be, the State Government is so impleaded as a defendant or non-applicant. Explanation - The expression "suit or proceeding" used in this sub- rule shall include appeal, reference or revision, but shall not include any proceeding for or connected with execution of any decree or final order passed in such suit or proceeding." By M.P.Act No.29 of 1984 the State of M.P. has made the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure and has incorporated the aforesaid rule 3B in Order I, according to which, no suit or proceeding for declaration of title about any right over any agricultural land, with or without any other relief shall be entertained by any Court and no Court shall proceed with pending suit or proceeding referred to in sub-rule (1) unless the State Government is so impleaded as a defendant or non-applicant. As per the "explanation" added to this provision, the suit or proceeding used in sub-rule shall include appeal, reference or revision, therefore, it is clear that if any suit was pending even between two parties relating to any right over agricultural land even without any relief against the State Government, it was necessary for the parties to join the State as a party in the suit, ( 7. ) In this case, though the suit was filed on 16.7.84 and the amendment came in force on 14.8.1984 but immediately after the amendment the plaintiff ought to have added the State as a party. According to me, in the language of Rule 3B suit for injunction relating to any right over any agricultural land is also covered in such suit and therefore not only the State but Gopal Mandir is also necessary party. This is also very clear from the khasra entries produced on record, Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5, in which the land is recorded in the name of Gopal Mandir through its Manager Collector. In view of the aforesaid documents if any party was interested to claim any right over the agricultural land, the same can not be done without joining the idol or Gopal Mandir as party, it was obligatory on the part of the party to join the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as Gopal Mandir through Collector, who was Manager as party. ( 8. ( 8. ) In case of Mahila Basiran Bai v. Eatimabai and others, reported in 1986 MPLJ 539 , the object of the aforesaid amendment was considered and it was held as under:- "The sole object of the State amendment is to protect interest of the State in a particular class of cases. Whether the State has any interest in any case at any stage of the lis has to be decided by any Court before which any proceeding is pending when the State Amendment Act to be discharged by not only the trial Court but also by the Appellate Court, of course, excluding the executing Court as is made very clear by the explanation appended to the new provision. Without discharging this duty it did not behove the appellate Court to pass any barren and omnibus order, shifting its responsibility to the trial Court." ( 9. ) But in case of Brijrajsingh Vs. Bitto Devi (Smt.) reported in 1994 MPLJ 192 Division Bench of this Court has held that non- compliance of amended provision of Rule 3-B of CPC does not create jurisdictional incompetence in court in hearing suit or appeal. Defect can be rectified by joining the State as party to the proceedings at that very stage at which the defect is detected or pointed out to the Court. Therefore, it is clear that suit can not be dismissed on the ground that State was not made as party and State can be added as party at any stage of the suit. But certainly a party can be non suited on the ground that the necessary party was not made party in the suit and court may ascertain the nature of dispute and who is the real owner and in such circumstances may refuse to grant even decree for injunction. In any case it is the duty of the court to see that jurisdiction of the court is not misused and the relief sought is not collusive in nature. ( 10. ) Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that though the State of Madhya Pradesh was a necessary party but a person cannot be non-suited on that ground and State can be added as party at any stage on which the objection is taken. ( 11. ( 10. ) Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that though the State of Madhya Pradesh was a necessary party but a person cannot be non-suited on that ground and State can be added as party at any stage on which the objection is taken. ( 11. ) In the revenue record when land is recorded in the name of temple and name of Pujari is recorded as "Ehatmam" then it can not be held that pujari is either the owner of the land or having possession thereon with its own rights. ( 12. ) In case of Kalanka Devi Sansthan vs. M.R.T., Nagpur and others, reported in AIR 1970 SC 439 , the Honble Supreme Court has held about the rights of the Pujari of a temple that "It is well known that when property is given absolutely for the worship of an idol it vests in the idol itself as a juristic person. The idol is capable of holding property in the same way as a natural person". Pujari is having very limited right. He is not having any ownership right in the property of the temple. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant and respondent were not entitled to partition the property mutually and also cannot bring a suit for injunction against the other person without making State or temple as party and such partition decree may also be treated as a collusive: Therefore, considering the aforesaid legal position it is clear that both the Courts below have committed error of law in not joining the temple as party, as under the facts and circumstances of the case the temple is necessary party and without adding the temple as party in the suit, the suit itself was not maintainable. ( 13. ) In view of the aforesaid discussion that the suit was not maintainable without adding the temple or idol as party and under the proviso of Section 100 CPC this Court can frame additional substantial question of law, therefore, exercising the aforesaid power following substantial question of law is framed :- "Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and when the land is recorded in the name of temple or idol, whether the suit for injunction filed by plaintiff was maintainable ?" ( 14. ) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question and as held supra in the case of Kalanka Devi Sansthan that the rights of Pujari are limited in the temple property, it is clear that the appellant and respondent those who are the brothers were not entitled to partition the property mutually and their possession cannot be treated as exclusive over the temple land, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to file even suit for injunction. Thus, without adding the temple as party the suit for injunction was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. ( 15. ) Consequently, this appeal is allowed and it is held that the possession of the plaintiff was not exclusive possession over the temple property, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to bring the suit for injunction in his own name. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are set aside and suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed