Stranger to be added as a party to the suit.

This is a petition against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, impleading a third party who wanted to come on record as the real owner of some of the properties involved in the suit.

The suit was for partition of the joint family properties. Among the suit properties items 9 to 18 are said to be properties owned in his absolute right by the sixth defendant, the son-in-law of the joint, family. These properties are claimed by the third party who wanted to be impleaded as a party-defendant as belonging to her. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it was necessary under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, to completely and effectively adjudicate the questions involved in the suit that the third party should be added as a party-defendant. Against that order is the present revision petition. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar appearing for the sixth defendant, who is the petitioner herein, contends that the petitioner-first defendant cannot be a proper or necessary party to the suit. He also points out to the fact that the sixth defendant has himself filed another suit against the respondent herein in another Court for declaring his title to the properties and also for an injunction restraining the first respondent from interfering with his possession. That suit is still pending, though an interim injunction was ordered against the present first respondent the claim of the first respondent is that she is the real owner of the properties which have been purchased benami in the name of the sixth defendant, and that since she is the real and legal owner of the properties and since the partition suit involves an adjudication as to whether these properties themselves are part of the joint family properties or not, she should be present in Court before any final adjudication takes place affecting her rights to the said properties. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar has invited my attention, in support of his contention that the first respondent cannot be a necessary or proper party to the suit, to the decisions in Nilakanta Iyer v. Ramanarayana Iyer1, Chidambaram Chettiar v. Subramaniam Chettiar2and Palaniswami Chettiar v. Komara Chettiar3. In my view the facts in the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are easily distinguishable from the facts that obtain in the present Civil Revision Petition. In this Civil Revision Petition the question involved is as to whether items 9 to 18 do or do not belong to the joint family and whether they are available or not for the purpose of division among the members of the joint family, who are entitled to the same. In order to decide whether these properties do or do not form part of the joint family assets and available for division among the heirs or claimants, whoever they are, it will be necessary to decide as to what exactly is the claim and title to the properties of the joint family. If the properties are claimed by third parties to belong to them, then the question involved in the suit for decision would also comprehend as to whether the properties are really that of the joint family or that they belong to third parties, in which case the claimants, who may be third parties and who claim the properties in their own absolute right, will have to be before Court in order that a decision may be arrived as to whether those properties are or are not to be included in the properties available for partition. In that view, I do not think that the right of this first respondent who is claiming an absolute title to items 9 to 18 and who is disputing the title of the sixth defendant to claim the said properties on the ground that he is only a. benamidar, to be brought on record, could be resisted. It may be that the sixth defendant claims these properties in his own right, but in so far as the decision whether these properties will or will not be available for partition is concerned, the question involved will not be between the parties to the suit alone but also the stranger a