1. The revision petitioner is a female member of a Mithakshara joint family. Her complaint is that her application to get herself impleaded as an additional defendant in a suit for partition was rejected by the court below.

2. The 1st plaintiff and his sou the 2nd plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the properties left by the (deceased Krishna Iyer The 1st plaintiff is the only son of, Subramonia Iyer who is one of the two sons of Krishna Iyer, Subramonia Iyer is also dead. Admittedly the Ist plaintiff and his son the 2nd plaintiff are together entitled to one half of the properties' left by Krishna Iyer. The other half has admittedly devolved upon Narayana Iyer and his heirs. Narayana Iyer who is the Ist defendant, has two sons. They are Vasudevan who is the 2nd defendant, and Radhakrishnan who is the 3rd defendant, The revision petitioner is Narayana Iyer's wife, Ammini Ammal, and she wants to be made an additional defendant in the suit for the purpose of agitating her alleged rights as a co-sharer along with her sons and husband.

3. She was not made a party in the suit apparently because the plaintiffs believed that she had no right to claim a share of the family p