Paramasiyam Pillai vs Adilakshmi Ammal and Others

Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.—This is a petition against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, impleading a third party who wanted to come on record as the real owner of some of the properties involved in the suit.

The suit was for partition of the joint family properties. Among the suit properties items 9 to 18 are said to be properties owned in his absolute right by defendant G, the son-in-law of the joint family. These properties are claimed by the third party who wanted to be impleaded as a party-defendant as belonging (o her. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it was necessary under Order 1. Rule 10, Civil P. C., to completely and effectively adjudicate the Questions involved in the suit that the third party should be added as a party-defendant. Against that order is the present revision petition.

Mr. Kamachandra Aiyar appearing for defendant 6, who is the petitioner herein, contends that the petitioner defendant 1 (sic) cannot be a proper or necessary party to the suit. He also points out to the fact that defendant 6 has himself filed another suit against the respondent herein in another Court for declaring his title to the properties and also for an injunction restraining respondent 1 from interfering with his possession. That suit is still pending, though an interim injunction was ordered against the present respondent 1. The claim of respondent 1 is that she is the real owner of the properties which have been purchased benami in the name of defendant 6, and that since she is the real and legal owner of the properties and since the partition suit involves an adjudication as to whether these properties themselves are part of the joint family properties or not, she should be present In Court before any final adjudication takes place affecting her rights to the said properties.

Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar has invited my attention, in support of his contention that respondent 1 cannot be a necessary or proper party to the suit, to the decisions in -- ''Nilakanta Iyer v. Ramanarayana Iyer'', AIR 1949 Mad 410 (A), -- V.R.S.S. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. P.L.N.K. Subramaniam Chettiar and Others, (B) and -- N.T. Palanisamy Chettiar by agent V.D. Seetarama Mudaliar Vs. Komara Chettiar and Others, (C). In my view the facts in the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner arc easily distinguishable from the facts that obtain in the present civil revision petition. In this civil revision petition the question involved is as to whether items 9 to 18 do or do not belong to the joint family and whether they are available or not for the purpose of division among the members of the joint family, who are entitled to the same. In order to decide whether these properties do or do not form part of the joint family assets and available for division among the heirs or claimants, whoever they are, it will be necessary to decide as to what exactly is the claim and title to the properties of the joint family. If the properties arc claimed by third parties to belong to them, then the question involved in the suit for decision would also comprehend as to whether the properties are really that of the joint family or that they belong to third parties, in which case the claimants, who may be third parties and who claim the properties in their own absolute right, will have to be before Court in order that a decision may be arrived as to whether those properties are or are not to be included in the properties available for partition. In that view. I do not think that the right "of this respondent I, who is claiming an absolute title to items 9 to 18 and who is disputing the title of defendant G to claim the said properties on the ground that he is only a benamidar, to be brought on record, could be resisted. It may be that defendant 6 claims these properties in his own right, but in so far as the decision whether these properties will or will not be available for partition is concerned, the question involved win not be between the parties to the suit alone but also the stranger and other parties.

In interpreting Order 1, Rule 10(2), Civil P. C., it has been held that the construction of the language of the section should be as liberal and as wide as possible and should not be restricted merely to the parties involved in the suit but that the attempt should be always to make parties all persons who may be necessary in order that there might be a final and complete adjudication of the points involved in the suit. In that view I think the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent 1 have a bearing on the point involved in this civil revision petition. Yelamanchili Pitchayya Vs. Yelamanchili Rattamma and Another, (D), -- Ramaswami Chettiar minor by next friend S.R.M.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar and Roya Kanniappa Mudaliar and Others Vs. P.M.A. Vellayappa Chettiar and Others, (E), and -- ''Sivarama Pillai v. Ganesaratnam Pillai'', AIR 1935 Mad S53 (F) certainly make it clear that it will be necessary, to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all questions involved in the suit, that all parties who claim any title to the properties in suit should be before the Court. Even so, the decision of Patanjali Sastri J. in -- Vanjiappa Goundan Vs. N.P.V.L.R. Annamalai Chettiar and Others, (G) holding that a liberal interpretation should be put upon the language of Order 1, Rule 10 (2), Civil P. C. will apply to the facts of the present case. I, therefore, hold that what the learned Subordinate Judge has done is not in any way an error of law or a wrong exercise of his jurisdiction in having allowed the petition of the respondent and added her as a defendant in the suit. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is upheld. The petitioner will pay the costs of respondent 1 in this civil revision petition.