T. MATHIVANAN, J.

This memorandum of Original Side Appeal has been directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 28.3.2014 and made in the Application in A.No.6237 of 2013 setting aside the order of the Master of this Court, dated 11.9.2013 and made in the Application in A.No.107 of 2013 in C.S.No.462 of 99 on the file of this Court.

2. The appellant herein, who is the third party to the suit in C.S.No.462 of 1999 seeks her impleadment as 5th plaintiff.

3. The first respondent herein is the 5th defendant in the suit, whereas the respondents 2 to 5 are the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the respondents 6 to 9 are the defendants 1 to 4.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the sixth respondent, viz., the first defendant had passed away and therefore, the seventh respondent, who is the second defendant in the suit has been recognised and recorded as the legal representative of R6/D1.

5. The respondents 2 to 5 being the plaintiffs 1 to 4 have filed the suit in C.S.No.462 of 1999 as against the respondents 6 to 9 as well as the first respondent seeking the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

6. The third defendant alone has been contesting the suit.

7. In the meanwhile, the appellant, who is absolutely a stranger to the suit came forward with an application in A.No.107 of 2013 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. seeking the relief of her impleadment in the suit as the fifth plaintiff.

8. This was vehemently resisted by the first respondent herein, who is the fifth defendant in the suit.

9. After hearing both sides, the learned Master has proceeded to allow that application on 11.9.2013 permitting the applicant to implead as the fifth plaintiff in the suit.

10. Impugning this order, dated 11.9.2013, the first respondent has filed an application in A.No.6237 of 2013 in the form of an appeal before this Court.

11. The learned Single Judge of this Court (K.K.S.J.) after hearing both sides, has allowed the application on 28.3.2014 after setting aside the order of the learned Master, dated 11.9.2013 and made in A.No.107 of 2013.

12. Having been aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, present appeal has been preferred by the applicant/third party/proposed fifth plaintiff, after invoking the provisions of Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

13. Heard Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Chitra Sampath, learned counsel appearing for Mr. N.A. Nissan Ahmed, who is on record for the respondents.

14. The subject matter of the suit is a house and ground bearing Door No.81 (Old No.44), R.K.Mutt Road, (Previously called as Brodies Road, Robertsonpet), Mylapore, Chennai-4, comprised in R.S.No.4167. This property has been described in two schedules, viz., Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B' in the plaint.

15. As it appear in the plaint schedule, the property originally comprised in R.S.No.4167 seems to have been sub-divided into two compartments, viz., R.S.No.4167/1 and 4167/2.

16. As afore stated, the total extent of the house site is 2475 sq.ft. After effecting sub division, an extent of 1210 sq.ft. (South to North 22 feet and East to West 55 feet) comes under R.S.No.4167/1 as it has been described under 'A' Schedule. The remaining extent of 1237 sq.ft. (South to North 23 feet and East to West 55 feet)comes under R.S.No.4167/2 as it has been described under Schedule 'B'.

17. The respondents 2 to 5/plaintiffs 1 to 4 have sought the relief of declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of the property, viz., house and ground measuring 2475 sq.ft. and also to direct the defendants 4 and 5 to handover the possession of the suit property to them.

18. According to the respondents 2 to 5/plaintiffs 1 to 4, the deceased sixth respondent/D1 had executed a sale deed in respect of 'A' Schedule property in favour of the 9th respondent/D4.

19. They have also claimed that the deceased sixth respondent/D1 had also executed anot