The main legal point established is that in a partition suit, necessary parties can be impleaded at any stage of the proceedings, and their presence is crucial for a complete and final decision.

1. These civil revision petitions are directed against the order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in I.A.Nos.248 and 249 of 2008 in O.S.No.17 of 1991.

2. The petitioner is the second plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 1991. He along with one Mr.Palaniandi(now deceased), had filed the suit against one Kulandaivelu and seven others for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. One Mangan was the owner of the suit properties. He had three sons, namely, (i)Rathinam, (ii)Muthukumarasami and (iii) Sengeni. The first son-Rathinam had three wives, namely, (1)Amirthammal, (2)Jagadambal and (3)Kannammal. Muthukumarasami - the second son of Mangan had only one son Venugopal and the third son-Sengeni had left the house long back and he could not be traced. So, he is deemed to have been died, as per the presumption under the Inaian Evidence Act. The sons of Jagadambal and Kannammal, namely, Palaniandi and Saravanavelu, respectively, had filed the suit against the grand children of first wife-Amirthammal, born through her first son-Subburayan.

3. In the suit, preliminary decree was passed, on 18.3.1993. Subsequently, the plaintiff had filed application in I.A.No.757 of 1998, for passing the final decree. In the final decree proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he also filed his report on 7.8.2008. When the final decree proceedings were pending, one Mr.Nagamuthu, son of the said Venugopal, filed a petition in I.A.No.248 of 2008, to implead him as defendant in the suit. The grand children of the first wife Amirthammal, born through her second son-Thangavelu, filed a petition in I.A.No.249 of 2008, with similar prayer of impleading them as defendants in the suit. The petitioner had filed his counter and contested the petitions. The learned I Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore, allowed the applications. Aggrieved by the order, the present revisions have been filed.

4. Heard Mr.R.Gururaj – the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Sezhian learned counsel for R4 in C.R.P.No.1601 of 2010 and Mr.T.S.Baskaran for R1 to R4 in C.R.P.No.1602 of 2010.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed parties are neither necessary parties nor proper parties to the suit proceedings. The suit was filed on the basis of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.900 of 1965, in which it has been decided that only Jagadambal, Kannammal and Subburayan have right in the suit properties. So, the judgment is binding on the parties, and the proposed parties cannot be impleaded in the present suit. The learned counsel further submitted that the original owner, namely, Mangan, had executed a settlement deed dated 27.6.1925 in favour of his first son Rathinam, in which, it is clearly stated that after the death of his three sons, namely, Rathinam, Muthukumarasami and Sengeni, the male heirs born through them at that time are entitled for equal shares in the suit properties. So, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the settlement deed was challenged in O.S.No.900 of 1965 by the said Jagadambal and Kannammal, the other legal heirs, namely, Thangavelu, Muthukumarasami and his son Venugopal, were not alive and therefore, their legal heirs/proposed parties, born subsequently, cannot claim any right in the suit properties.

6. The learned counsel further contended that in the suit, already preliminary decree was passed, determining the shares of the parties and therefore, the present applications cannot be allowed and if they are allowed, de-novo trial has to be conducted in the suit. If the proposed parties are aggrieved by the preliminary decree, they can very well challenge the decree in an appeal or they can file a separate suit for partition. The learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (i)AIR 1955 SC 481-Sahu Madho Das and Others v. Mukand Ram and another, (ii) (1995) 3 SCC 147-Anil Kuma Singh v. Shivnat