JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge–I Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 24-N/2000 titled Jarmej Singh vs. Raghubir Singh whereby learned Additional District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala had affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court i.e. Civil Judge Court No. II Nurpur District Kangra in Civil Suit No. 67 of 1995 titled Jarmej Singh and others vs. Raghubir Singh. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that Jarmej Singh and others plaintiffs filed suit for possession of suit land comprised in Khata No. 85 Khatauni No. 271 min Khasra No. 19, 20 and 27 measuring 0-31-42 situated in Tikka mauja Thapkaur Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra H.P. It is pleaded that suit land is Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue) and plaintiffs are co-sharers along with other co-sharers. It is pleaded that present suit has been filed for the benefit of other co-sharers also. It is pleaded that defendant was not inducted as tenant over the suit land at any point of time and defendant has also not any immovable property in the village. It is pleaded that defendant is trespasser over the suit land and plaintiffs have asked the defendant to vacate the suit land but defendant did not vacate the suit land despite request. Prayer for decree of possession as mentioned in relief clause of plaint is sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable in present form and suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and further pleaded that plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit. It is also pleaded that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit and plaintiffs have also no cause of action against the defendant and plaintiffs have not come to Court with clean hands. It is denied that plaintiffs have any title over the suit property. It is pleaded that suit land was allotted to defendant under the H.P. Village Common Land and Utilization Scheme and allotment certificate has been issued by the Collector in favour of the defendant. It is denied that plaintiffs have any title over the suit property. It is pleaded that suit land was allotted to defendant under the H.P. Village Common Land and Utilization Scheme and allotment certificate has been issued by the Collector in favour of the defendant. It is pleaded that possession of suit land was also delivered to the defendant and in alternative defendant has become owner of suit land by way of right of adverse possession. It is pleaded that plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. As per the pleadings of parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 12.6.1996:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession over the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands if so its effect? OPD 8. Whether the suit land has been allotted by the H.P. Government to the defendant as alleged if so its effect? OPD 9. Relief. 5. Findings of learned trial Court on issues Nos. 1 to 6 were in negative and against the plaintiffs and learned trial Court decided issue Nos. 7 and 8 in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit filed by plaintiffs. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court appellants have filed appeal before learned Additional District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala and vide Civil Appeal No. 24-N of 2000 titled Jarmej Singh and others vs. Raghubir Singh learned first Appellate Court held that suit has not been filed in representative capacity in view of the fact that suit land is Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue) and thereafter learned first Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. 7. 7. Thereafter feeling aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned first Appellate Court appellants filed present Regular Second Appeal No. 118 of 2003 titled Jarmej Singh and others vs. Raghubir Singh. Hon’ble High Court admitted the appeal on dated 31.3.2003 on the following substantial question of law:- Whether first appellate Court has wrongly read and inferred the oral and documentary evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs-appellants have no locus standi to file their suit in individual capacity as the land in dispute is recorded in the ownership of SHAMLAT DEH HASAB RASAD MALGUZARI? 8. Parties examined following oral witnesses in supported of their case:- Sr. No. Name of witness PW1 Jarmej Singh PW2 Dhian Singh DW1 Raghubir Singh DW2 Puran Chand 8.1. Parties produced following documentary evidence in support of their case:- Sr. No. Description Ext.P1 List of co-sharers. Ext.P2 Misal Hakiyat for the year 1983-84 Ext.P3 Jamabandi for the year 1990-91 Ext.P4 Jamabandi for the year 1978-79 Ext.P5 Jamabandi for the year 1978-79 Ext.D1 Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 Ext.D2 Certificate of allotment given by Collector Ext.DA Copy of Mutation No. 323 9. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the entire record carefully. Evidence adduced by parties 9.1 PW1 Jarmej Singh has stated that suit land is Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue). He has stated that plaintiffs have also other immovable land which is owned by plaintiffs and plaintiffs used to pay land revenue. He has stated that defendant has encroached upon the suit land in the year 1983. He has stated that defendant has no share in the suit property and defendant did not pay any land revenue in village. He has stated that State did not become owner of suit property at any point of time. He has stated that no allotment of land was granted in favour of defendant by the Collector. He has further stated that plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the suit land but defendant did not vacate the suit property. He has stated that defendant has no interest in suit property. He has stated that there are more than 150 persons who are owners of suit property. He has stated that initially suit land was owned by Panchayat. He has further stated that plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the suit land but defendant did not vacate the suit property. He has stated that defendant has no interest in suit property. He has stated that there are more than 150 persons who are owners of suit property. He has stated that initially suit land was owned by Panchayat. He has stated that he does not know that thereafter ownership of suit land vested in H.P. Government. He has denied suggestion that suit land was allotted in favour of defendant in the year 1980. He had admitted that defendant is in settled possession of suit land since the time of settlement. 9.2 PW2 Dhian Singh Patwari has stated that he has brought the summoned record. He has stated that nature of suit land is Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue). He has stated that list of proprietors of suit land is Ext.P1 which is correct as per revenue record. 9.3 DW1 Raghubir Singh has stated that suit land is in his settled possession and he is owner of suit property since 1975. He has stated that suit land was allotted by H.P. Government in the year 1975. He has stated that possession was given by Halqua Patwari and Field Kanungo to the defendant. He has stated that he is owner of suit property and further stated that plaintiffs have no right title or interest in suit property. He has denied suggestion that he is encroacher over the suit property. He has denied suggestion that he has no right title or interest in suit property. 9.4 DW2 Puran Chand has stated that parties are known to him and he has seen the suit property. He has stated that defendant is in possession of suit property for the last more than 25 years. He has stated that suit land was allotted to defendant by H.P. Government. He has stated that possession was delivered to the defendant by Halqua Patwari and Field Kanungo. He has stated that plaintiffs have no title in suit property. He has denied suggestion that defendant is trespasser of suit land. Findings upon Substantial Question of law framed by Hon’ble High Court:- 10. As per document Ext.P1 fehrist Malkan (List of owners), more than 150 persons have been shown as owners of suit property. He has stated that plaintiffs have no title in suit property. He has denied suggestion that defendant is trespasser of suit land. Findings upon Substantial Question of law framed by Hon’ble High Court:- 10. As per document Ext.P1 fehrist Malkan (List of owners), more than 150 persons have been shown as owners of suit property. As per document Ext.P2 Misal Hakiyat Bandobast (Settlement) prepared for the year 1983-84 in the ownership column of suit property name of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue) has been shown. In possession column name of defendant is recorded and old khasra number is recorded as 1 min and new Khasra Nos. recorded as 19, 20 and 27 and nature of land has been shown as Kuhli Awal (Irrigated land) and barren land. Entries of jamabandi for the year 1990-91 Ext.P3 are the same as recorded in jamabandi for the year 1983-84. As per jamabandi Ext.P4 for the year 1978-79 suit land has been recorded in the ownership of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue) and Khasra number has been shown as 1 and area has been shown as 137 Kanals and nature of suit land has been shown as Gair Mumkin Khud (River). In the remarks column it has been shown that land measuring 10 Kanals 10 marlas situated in Khasra No. 1/4 has been allotted to Raghubir Singh and mutation was sanctioned on dated 10.7.1980. As per further remarks column mutation in favour of Raghubir Singh was reviewed and cancelled. As per jamabandi Ext.P5 placed on record for the year 1978-79 in the ownership column suit land has been shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue) and area of suit land is shown as 137 Kanals and nature of suit land has been shown as Gair Mumkin Khud (River) and khasra of suit land has been shown as 1. In the remarks column it has been mentioned that land measuring 10 Kanals 10 marlas was allotted in favour of defendant Raghubir Singh and mutation was sanctioned on dated 10.7.1980. There is further recital in remarks column that mutation stood reviewed on dated 21.9.1984. In the remarks column it has been mentioned that land measuring 10 Kanals 10 marlas was allotted in favour of defendant Raghubir Singh and mutation was sanctioned on dated 10.7.1980. There is further recital in remarks column that mutation stood reviewed on dated 21.9.1984. As per jamabandi for the year 1972-73 suit land has been shown in ownership of Gram Panchayat Deh and Khasra number has been mentioned as 1 and total area of suit land has been mentioned as 137 Kanals and nature of suit land is shown as Gair Mumkin Khud (River). In the remarks column it has been mentioned that ownership of Gram Panchayat deleted and ownership of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue) was recorded on dated 4.11.1973. There is further recital in remarks column that vide mutation No. 316 suit land vested in H.P. Government and mutation was sanctioned. There is further recital that mutation in the name of H.P. Government was reviewed and cancelled. There is further recital in remarks column of the jamabandi for the year 1972-73 that 10 Kanals 10 marlas of suit land comprised in Khasra No. 1/4 was allotted in favour of Raghubir Singh and mutation was sanctioned on dated 10.7.1980. There is further recital in remarks column that mutation in favour of defendant was reviewed on dated 21.9.1984 and as per document Ext.D2 land comprised in Khasra No. 1/4 measuring 10 Kanals 10 Marlas was allotted in favour of defendant Raghubir Singh by Collector under H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Schemes 1975. 11. In present case it is proved on record that suit land was comprised in Khasra No. 1 measuring 137Kanals and it is also proved on record that land measuring 10 Kanals 10 Marlas was allotted in favour of defendant comprised in Khasra No. 1/4 situated in Tika Thapkaur Mauza Thapkaur Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra (H.P.) under H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Scheme 1975. There is no documentary evidence on record in order to prove that certificate of allotment of land in favour of defendant was cancelled by Collector. It is well settled law that title passed in favour of defendant after issuance of allotment certificate by the Collector qua 10 Kanals 10 marlas of land situated in Khasra No. 1/4 situated in Tika Thapkaur mauza Thapkaur Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra. It is well settled law that title passed in favour of defendant after issuance of allotment certificate by the Collector qua 10 Kanals 10 marlas of land situated in Khasra No. 1/4 situated in Tika Thapkaur mauza Thapkaur Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra. As per Section 10 of H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act 1974 order passed by Collector could not be challenged before the Civil Court and same could be challenged only under Section 9 before the State Government or before the Officer authorized by the State Government by notification within 60 days from the passing of order. There is no evidence on record that certificate of allotment granted by the Collector in favour of defendant has been set aside by any competent authority of law in appeal as mentioned in Section 9 of H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act 1974. It is held that simple review of mutation in favour of defendant did not extinguish the title of defendant granted to the defendant by way of allotment under H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act 1974 because it is well settled law that mutation did not confer or extinguish any title. It was held in case reported in AIR 1994 SC 227 titled Guru Amarjeet Singh vs. Rattan Chand and others that mutation does not confer or extinguish any title. (Also see 1996 (4) SLJ 2982 titled Mohammad Iqbal vs. Government of India and others) It is proved on record that suit land is in ownership of general public who are residents of village Tikka Thapkaur as per land revenue paid by them and all villagers have proprietary rights on suit property as per share of land revenue paid by them. In present case plaintiffs have not filed the suit in representative capacity. It is proved on record that plaintiffs have filed the suit regarding the suit property owned by general public residing in village. It is well settled law that suit relating to immovable property which is owned by general public residing in the village could be filed in representative capacity only with leave of Court under Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Plaintiff did not seek the leave of Court in present case. It is well settled law that suit relating to immovable property which is owned by general public residing in the village could be filed in representative capacity only with leave of Court under Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Plaintiff did not seek the leave of Court in present case. In present case suit property is not shown to have been exclusively owned by plaintiffs but by documentary evidence placed on record it is proved that suit property is owned by general public who is residing in the village and share of general public is as per payment of land revenue. Exclusive names of plaintiffs did not figure in the ownership column of suit property. On the contrary there is recital in record of rights prepared under H.P. Land Revenue Act that suit property is owned by general public residing in the village as per payment of land revenue. The plaintiffs themselves pleaded in the plaint that they have filed the present suit for the benefit of other co-owners also. As per Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC whenever any civil suit is filed for the benefit of other co-owners also then prior permission of Court is essential to file the suit in representative capacity. In present case plaintiff did not seek any permission to file any suit in representative capacity for the benefit of other co-owners. Hence it is held that no relief could be granted in favour of plaintiffs in view of provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. Even it is proved on record that present suit has been filed by plaintiffs in personal capacity but personal names of plaintiffs did not record in ownership column of suit property. On the contrary in the ownership column it is recorded that suit land is owned by all proprietors of village who use to pay land revenue i.e. Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Malguzari. 12. In present case there is recital in plaint that present suit has been filed for the benefit of other co-owners also. As per record of right placed on record prepared by public servant in discharge of official duty suit land is owned by Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue). There is no evidence on record that suit land has been partitioned in accordance with law. As per record of right placed on record prepared by public servant in discharge of official duty suit land is owned by Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue). There is no evidence on record that suit land has been partitioned in accordance with law. Individual name of plaintiff is also not recorded in ownership column of suit land prepared under H.P. Land Revenue Act and share of plaintiff is also not defined till date. In view of certificate given by Collector Nurpur qua allotment of land in favour of defendant qua 10 Kanals 10 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 1/4 situated in Tika Thapkaur Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant relief to plaintiffs as sought in relief clause of plaint. Allotment certificate given by Collector Ext.D2 will form part and parcel of decree sheet. Substantial question of law framed by Hon’ble High Court is answered in negative against the appellants. 13. In view of above findings RSA No. 118 of 2003 filed by appellants is dismissed. Judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below are affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet as mentioned under Section 100 of CPC be prepared forthwith. File of learned trial Court and first Appellate Court along with certified copy of judgment and decree be transmitted forthwith. Pending applications if any also disposed of. Appeal stands disposed of.