1. The question for decision is whether respondents 1 to 5 were properly impleaded in the suit as additional defendants 4 to 8.

2. The plaintiff sued for partition and recovery of her share in property gifted to her and her brothers, defendants 1 and 2, by their mother the third defendant. While the suit was pending, respondents 1 to 5 applied for impleading them in the suit on the ground that the property sought to be partitioned belonged to the tavazhi consisting of the third defendant and her descendants. Overruling the objections of the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2, the court below impleaded the applicants, stating that such a course would tend to avoid multiplicity of suits. The plaintiff has therefore filed this civil revision petition.

3. The order cannot be supported. Respondents 1 to 5 dispute the exclusive title of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 to the property. This is not a suit where the subject-matter is a declaration regarding the status or legal character as in Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum AIR. 1958 SC. 886. It cannot be said that the presence or respondents 1 to 5 is necessary for a proper decision of the suit. Even assuming that they are proper par