The test for determining whether a person is a necessary party to a suit is whether their presence is necessary for the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

( 1 ) THE opponent has instituted a suit against his sister-in-law (brother's wife) for a declaration that after the death of his father Gambhirji and his brother Ambaram, the husband of Sampatbai, he alone was entitled to the Pakka tenancy rights in the agricultural lands specified in para 2 of the plaint that Sampatbai had no right in them whatsoever; and that the mutation made in her favour in regard to those lands was illegal and ineffective. The plaintiff also claimed possession of the lands in suit from Sampatbai and mesne profits. One of the objections taken by Sampatbai in defence is that Narayansingh, who is the adopted son of Ambaram, is a necessary party to the suit. The learned Civil Judge, First Class, Dhar, who is trying the suit, held on 97-1958 that Narayansingh was not a necessary party. Thereafter on 10-9-1958 an application was made on behalf of minor Narayansingh by Sampatbai acting as his guardian for being made a defendant in the suit. This application was rejected by the trial Court. Hence this revision petition.

( 2 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I have reached the conclusion that this petition must be accepted and the lower Court must be directed to determine afresh the question of Narayansingh's joinder in the suit. The learned trial Judge rejected the prayer of Narayansingh for being joined in the suit on the grounds that the grant of the application would involve an investigation into the question of Narayansingh's adoption contrary to the wishes of the plaintiff and that the question of adoption had no connection whatsoever with the dispute in the plaintiff's suit. In my opinion, these considerations cannot be said to be relevant or proper in determining the question under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), C. P. C. , whether any person ought to have been joined in the suit as a defendant and whether his presence is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) C. P. C. , the Court has jurisdiction to join a person as a plaintiff or as a defendant whose presence is necessary for the prescribed purpose and has no jurisdiction under the rule to join a person whose presence is not necessary for that purpose. The test is not whether the joinder of the person proposed to be added as a defendant would be according to or against the wishes of the plaintiff or whether the joinder would involve an investigation into a question not arising on the cause of action averred by the plaintiff. It is whether the relief claimed by the plaintiff will directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his rights. It is not enough that the plaintiff's rights, and rights which the person desiring to be made a defendant wishes to assert should be connected with the same subject-matter. The intervener must be directly and legally interested in the answers to the questions involved in the case. A person is legally interested in the answer only if he can say that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally -- that is by curtailing his legal rights. This is the test which has been applied in Amon v. Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd. , 1956-1 All ER 273, in connection with R. S. C. Order 16, Rule 11 which is similar to Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. Again as pointed out in Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S. A. v. Bank of England, 1950-2 All ER 605 at p. 611, in determining whether or not an applicant has a proprietary right in the subject matter of an action sufficient to entitle him to be joined as a defendant "the true test lies not so much in an analysis of what are the constituents of the applicant's rights, but rather in what would be the result on the subject-matter of the action if those rights could be established". The question of the joinder of Narayansingh as a defendant in the suit should have been, therefore, decided with reference to these tests.

( 3 ) NOW, here, in his application for