DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioners wanted to implead themselves as additional defendants in a suit for partition that is instituted by the plaintiffs. The essential allegation of the petitioners is that the property that is sought to be partitioned among the plaintiffs and the defendants do not belong to them but to the petitioners. They assert that even though the original plaintiffs and defendants have been able to obtain a decree of partition allegedly by collusion, the properties that are involved in the suit are, in fact, belonging to the petitioners and not to the plaintiffs or the defendants and they, therefore claim that the properties ought not to have been included in the suit for partition.

2. To establish the claim over the properties involved in the suit, the petitioners filed two I.As, one to implead themselves in the suit and the other to re-open the preliminary decree. The court below considered the application for impleadment and held that it is unnecessary and that the petitioners cannot have a locus to get themselves impleaded in the suit that has been filed by the plaintiffs for partition. It is noticed that the petitioner cannot have a claim to b