The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal and wide interpretation of provisions related to adding parties, the distinction between direct interest and commercial interest, and the requirement of prima facie satisfaction about the bona fides of the applicant for impleadment.

These two revision petitions are arising from suit O.S.No.105/86 on the file of the Munsiff's Court. Parappanangadi. It is a suit for partition. Petitioners in these revisions are not parties to the suit. They filed two separate interlocutory applications, one for impleadment and other for the issue of a commission. Both these petitions were dismissed by the court below as per the common order dated 1-9-1987, which is challenged in these petitions. C.R.P.No.1711/87 is against the order in I.A. 2248/86 and C.R.P. 2345/87 is against the order in I.A.I415/87. The plaintiff is figured as first respondent in both the revisions and the defendants 1 to 8 as respondents 2 to 9.

2. The facts of the case can be summarised thus: One of the items of properties comprised in R.S.451/2 is the plaint schedule property which is sought to be partitioned in O.S.105/86. It was originally belonged to Guruvayoor Devaswom in jenmom rights. It was held by one Unichira Amma on kanam rights as per kanam chit dated 31-1-1927. Guruvayoor Devaswom filed O.S.No. 80/81 in the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi against the legal heirs of Unichira Amma in realisation of the arrears of rent due under the kanam chit. In execution of the decree in O.S.80/81 G uruvayoor Devaswom brought all the properties under kanam chit to court sale. In E.P.137/above properties were sold in court auction on 17-9-1964. The sale was duly confirmed and the sale certificate was issued to auction purchaser. The auction purchaser took delivery of the property on 8-12-1964. While so, second petitioner herein had obtained assignment of the rights of the auction purchaser. In the meanwhile Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings (Amendment) Act of 1969 came into force. The first petitioner claimed that she had the leasehold right over the properties under kanam rights. The tenancy right of the 1st petitioner was later recognised by the Land Tribunal, Chavakkad and issued Certificate of Purchase. In view of the provisions of the above Act of 1969 an order for 'redelivery was passed in E.A.418/69 and the Amin came to the property for effecting re-delivery. At that time there was a mediation talk through Advocate Sri. Raman Kutty Menon, who was appearing for the applicant in the matter and as a result thereof an agreement was executed (Ext.Al). As per this agreement northern half of the property was allowed to be in possession of the petitioners while the possession of southern half of properly was to be with defendants 4 to 8. Since the matter was thus settled, neither of the parties thereafter appeared before the Munsiffs Court in the suit O.S.85/80 and the suit was thus allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The suit O.S.85/80 was the one filed by petitioners for declaration that they had become the owners of the property on the basis of the certificate of purchase obtained by them. The petitioners have thus been in continuous possession of the northern half of the property pursuant to the aforesaid settlement. However the present suit O.S.105/S6 was filed by one of the successors in interest of Unichira Amma for partition of the property. No reference was made in the plaint O.S.105/ 86 as to the agreement. When the petitioners came to know about the institution of the suit, they filed LA. 2248/86 praying that they may be impleaded as parties to the suit in as much as they are vitally interested in contesting the claim for partition in respect of the northern portion of the property. LA. 1411/37 was also filed by them for the issue of a commission for preparing a plan and report in respect of the plaint schedule property. While deciding these two petitions, the court below framed four issues. The first issue among them relates to the question whether the petitioners have got any title or possession over the plaint schedule property before the disputed delivery. Without taking any oral evidence the court below passed an order that the petitioners are not in possession of the p