JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. Aggrieved by the rejection of their application seeking impleadment in the suit instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs, the petitioners have filed this petition by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit against the State of Himachal Pradesh claiming therein declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land as they were in possession of the same as Hissadar Shamlat. The petitioners sought their impleadment by contending that they had purchased the land adjoining to the suit land from one Sundu Ram who was having the right in the land Shamlat Tika Deh Hasab Rasab Malguzari and were therefore, necessary parties to the suit. 3. The learned Court below rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. 4. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the learned Court below is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law as the petitioners were claiming passage on the Government land in Khasra No. 1023 which passage leads to the school run by the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would argue that no illegality or impropriety committed by the learned Courts below in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. Admittedly, the plaintiffs/respondents have filed the suit for declaration on the basis that they are in possession of the land by virtue of their being Hissadar Shamlat. Evidently, while seeking impleadment, no such claim has been put-forth by the petitioners and rather it has been claimed that they have purchased certain land adjoining to the suit land from Sundu Ram who was having his right in the Shamlat land. This is evident from para 3 of the application which reads thus: “3. That the applicants have purchased the land adjoining to Khasra No. 1023 i.e. Khasra No. 1024 from one Shri Sundu Ram who was having his right in the land Shamlat Tika Deh Hasab Rasab Malguzari.” It is absolutely clear from the aforesaid averment that the petitioners have not claimed themselves to be in possession as Hissadar Shamlat. 7. That the applicants have purchased the land adjoining to Khasra No. 1023 i.e. Khasra No. 1024 from one Shri Sundu Ram who was having his right in the land Shamlat Tika Deh Hasab Rasab Malguzari.” It is absolutely clear from the aforesaid averment that the petitioners have not claimed themselves to be in possession as Hissadar Shamlat. 7. Para 8.38 of the H.P. Land Records Manual provides that if a deed of transfer by sale, gift, mortgage or exchange does not specifically mention that a share of Shamlat is transferred with the land it should be presumed that the Shamlat is not transferred. 8. In addition thereto, para 224 of Sir W.H. Rattigan, K.C., LL D. A Digest of Customary Law clearly states as under: “224. As a general rule, only proprietors of the village (malikandeh) as distinguished from proprietors of their own holdings (malikan-makbuza khud) are entitled to share in the shamilatdeh.” 9. In Bagga and others vs. Saleh and others AIR 1915 Privy Council page 106, it was categorically held by the Hon’ble Privy Council that mere payment of Tirni (grazing dues) by a person who is not a proprietor paying land revenue does not confer upon him any right to share in the shamilat of a village. 10. It is settled law that plaintiff is dominus-litis and is not bound to sue every possible adverse claim in the same suit and he may choose to implead only those persons as defendants against whom he wishes to proceed, but the court at any stage of the suit, may direct addition of parties. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively, while a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. The addition of a party is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of judicial discretion, which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of particular case. The addition of a party is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of judicial discretion, which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of particular case. The court is empowered to join a person whose presence is necessary for the prescribed purpose and cannot under the rule direct addition of a person, whose presence is not necessary for that purpose. 11. Notably, the petitioners have nowhere alleged that they are in possession of the land as Hissadar Shamlat, rather it is their admitted case that Sundu Ram from whom they had purchased the land, in fact had right in the land. Thus, the petitioners cannot be considered to be similarly situated to those of the plaintiffs and cannot, therefore, claim any interest in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents. 12. Having said so, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.