The main legal point established is the wide power of the Court to join any party to a proceedings to enable the settlement of all questions involved in the suit and the necessity of impleading proper and necessary parties for the complete adjudication of the claim.

1. The defendants are the petitioners herein. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order made in I.A.No. 158 of 2005 in O.S.No. 86 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, dated 31.08.2005

2. The defendants filed I.A.No.158 of 2005 in O.A.No.86 of 2003 to implead one Tmt. Govindammal wife of Govindan and Thangammal wife of Kolandai Gounder as defendants to the Suit and this Interlocutory Application was dismissed by the Court below, as against which the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. According to the Revision Petitioners the plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of an agricultural land comprised in Survey No.423/2A, Kambapatti Village, Dharmapuri Taluk, measuring an extent of 1.80 acres. The plaintiff in paragraph No.4 of the Plaint has avered as to the manner in which he has acquired title over the Suit Property. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement.

4. During the pendency of the Suit, an Application in I.ANo. 158 of 2005 came to be filed by the defendants to implead the two persons stated above, one of whom is the wife of the plaintiff, stating that they are predecessor in title and adjacent land owners and therefore, they are proper and necessary parties for the adjudication of the claim. The plaintiff filed their counter affidavit contending that the said two persons are neither proper or necessary parties to the case and prayed for dismissal of the Interlocutory Application. The trial Court after considering the scope of Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2005 SAR (CIVIL) 500, dismissed the Application.

5. Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the finding of the trial Court that by impleading the vendors as defendants in the Suit would enlarge the scope of the Suit besides, protracting the issue, is unacceptable and the trial Court ought to have considered the aspect that the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties for the full and complete adjudication of the lis. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in 2005 3 CTC 733 [SIVARAMAN @ HARIKRISHNAN Vs. RAJESWARI @ SHANTHI] in support of his contention.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand would contend that the proposed parties are adjacent owners and they are no way connected with the suit property and they have no interest in the subject matter and therefore the trial Court was right in dismissing the Application. Further, it is contended that the plaintiff is in a position of dominus litis and therefore he cannot be compelled to contest his suit against the proposed parties.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.423/2A, Kambapatti Village, Dharmapuri Taluk, measuring an extent of 1.80 acres. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it has been stated that the property, which is situated adjacent to the plaintiff's property was purchased by the first defendant by sale deed dated 24.05.1999 and their vendor was Kolandai Gounder, who became entitled to the property by sale deed dated 18.01.1962, after the demise of Kolandai Gounder, his wife Tmt. Thangammal and others had sold the property to the first defendant. It is further stated that when the sale deed was executed, the parties have measured the common path way and thereafter registered the document. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it has been stated that the predecessor in title of the first defendant, Kolandai Gounder by sale deed dated 18.01.1962 had purchased only an extent of 86 cents in survey No.424, but his