In a suit for declaration of title, persons claiming title over part of the suit schedule property and not original parties to the suit are necessary parties and can be impleaded to protect their interests.

Koshy, J.

Petitioner in these revision petitions is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 893 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Cherthala. In the suit petitioner alleged that on 23.3.1119 document No. 1117 was executed in favour of the father of defendants in the suit and in spite of the document, petitioner has continued to he in possession of the property and effected valuable improvements therein and continued to reside in the building. The defendants after the death of their father failed to re convey the property to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration of his right over the plaint schedule property. I. A. No. 1802 of 1993 was filed by the respondent (C.R.P. 'Mb. 1581 of 1993) stating that over a portion of the plaint schedule property her deceased father had right and as such his legal heirs including the petitioner in the

1. A. (respondent herein) have right over ten cents of property. The contention in the objection filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff is that the right alleged by the respondent/ petitioner in the I. A. over 10 cents of property forming part of the plaint schedule property is false. Learned Munsiff found that respondent in the revision petition is a necessary party to the suit as she is claiming right over ten cents of property which is part of the 30 cents of land for which declaration is, sought for. In LA. No. 634 of 1993 also similar claim was raised regarding another ten cents of land on the ground that their deceased father had obtained purchase- certificate in respect of ten cents of property which is covered in the 30 cents of plaint schedule property and one of the legal heirs has filed a partition suit O.S. No. 259 of 1991 in respect of that property which is pending adjudication before the Sub Court, Cherthala. A copy of that paint was also produced for evidence. Learned Munsiff found that they also should be impleaded since it is a suit for declaration of title in the plaint schedule property and petioner s in the LA. are claiming title over part of the property. Against the above order, C.R.P. No. 1582 of 1993 is filed. Since the issues are same, they are heard together with the consent of parties.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that impleadment of the respondents in the civil revision petitions in the suit are illegal and against the provisions of O. IR. 10. They are not necessary parties. Plaintiff/ petitioner is not seeking any relief against the respondents who were impleaded. Therefore, their impleadment is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also contended mat they are not necessary parties and their presence is in no way required for the effective adjudication of the dispute in question which the plaintiff filed against the original defendants in the suit. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the impugned orders impleading the respondents in both the revision petition should be set aside.

3. In support of the contention petitioner cited the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Somalah and another v. Smt. Amina Begum (AIR 1976 Andra Pradesh 182) where it was held that where a person applies to be made as a party to the suit, the Court should see whether there will be prejudice by his not being added as as party. The questions involved in the suit in O.1 R.10 refer only to questions between the parties to the suit. They refer only to questions as between the plaintiff and defendant and not to questions, which may arise between a party to the suit and a third party. The procedure under O.1 R.10 should always be adopted where it is really necessary for a complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of suit. O.1 R.10 cannot be resorted to where there is no need for adding new parties for adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit. Persons cannot be added as parties to the suit merely because it may save them the expenses of a separate suit for seeking adjudication on the claim made