V.K. Agrawal, J.

This revision is directed against the order dt. 11-11-1998 by IInd Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 133-A/1998, whereby the application (Annexure A-5) of respondents Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 under Order 1, Rule 1 read with Rule 10 and 13 of CPC for impleading them as party in the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, was allowed.

Undisputably, the plaintiffs/petitioners are the children of Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank. Brijlal Tank was also the son of said Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank and the brother of petitioners/plaintiffs. The property in dispute is Khasra No. 475/3 situate at Modhapara, Raipur. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit, (copy of plaint Annexure A-1) alleging that the property in dispute was purchased in two instalments by Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank in the name of his son Brijlal Tank. By the first sale deed dt. 18-6-1953, 6090 sq.ft. of land of said Khasra No. 475/3 was purchased, while subsequently on 5-10-1955 by another sale deed 2813 sq. ft. of land of same Khasra was purchased. Both the sale deeds were got executed by Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank in favour of his son Brijlal Tank.

After the purchase as above of the said property, Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank constructed several shops over the suit land. The shops are in occupation of various tenants. Out of the shops constructed on the suit property, a shop was in occupation of defendants/respondent No. 1 Ranjitsingh Dhuman, while two other shops were in possession of Brijlal Tank. Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank died in the year 1965.

The case of plaintiffs/petitioners was that thereafter the aforesaid property in suit became the Joint Hindu Family ancestral property of the plaintiffs, in which plaintiffs and their brother Brijlal Tank had equal share. After the death of their father, Brijlal Tank realised rent from the tenants of the shops constructed on the suit property, and also continued to carry on his business in the shops in his occupation. Brijlal Tank died in the year 14-4-1997.

The case of plaintiffs/petitioners further was that after the death of Brijlal Tank, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 instigated the tenant of the shops standing on the suit property, not to pay rent to the plaintiffs. They with mala fide intention also filed an application for mutation of their names setting up an alleged Will dt. 17-4-1994 allegedly executed by Brijlal Tank. According to the plaintiff/petitioner the Will was a forgery and was obtained by fraud and was null and void. The plaintiffs/petitioners prayed for declaration : (a) that the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and that they are the title holders and owners thereof; (b) that the alleged Will dt. 17-5-1994 alleged to be executed by Brijlal Tank was null and void. They also claimed relief of permanent injunction: (1) against the defendant/respondent No. 1 restraining him from transferring the suit property; (2) against defendants Nos. 4 and 5 not to record the names of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on the suit property and to record the names of plaintiffs as the owners of the suit property.

In the said suit respondents Nos. 6 to 9 filed an application (Annexure A-5), under Order 1, Rule 1,10 and 13, CPC for their impleadment in the suit. It was averred in the said application that they are also daughters of Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank, by his second wife Gomti Ben Tank and that Brijlal Tank was their brother. Therefore, the respondents Nos. 6 to 9 have also right, title and interest in the suit property and therefore they are necessary and proper parties. The said application was allowed by the impugned order and the applicants/respondents Nos. 6 to 9 herein have been ordered to be impleaded.

The learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs in the first place urged that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and is free to frame the suit as he chooses. He cannot be forced to join the respondents Nos. 6 to 9 as parties. Reliance in this connection has been placed by the learned counsel on Muslim Wakf Boa