ORDER :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling Aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated August 29, 2022 passed in I.A.No.696 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2012 on the file of the ‘Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi’ (hereinafter referred as ‘Trial Court’) filed under Order I Rule 10 of the ‘Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’ (‘CPC’ for short) to implead the Petitioner therein as the 2^nd Plaintiff in the Suit, the Petitioner therein has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The Plaintiff namely Manickammal filed the Original Suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the first respondent (father of the Respondents 3 to 5) and the second respondent. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties and some more properties were exclusively owned by her husband - Ayyasamy Udaiyar who was in possession and enjoyment of the same. On July 02, 2004, her hsuband executed a Gift Settlement Deed in her favour in respect of the suit properties. From the date of the Gift Settlement Deed, the Plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, and a separate Patta bearing No.613 was issued in her name. As the defendants disputed her title over the suit properties, she filed the Original Suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction.

3.The Respondents 1 and 2 / Defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance and the 2^nd Respondent filed his Written Statement denying the averments made in the Plaint. The same was adopted by the first respondent. According to the 2^nd Respondent, the Plaintiff's husband - Ayyasamy Udaiyar himself had no right or title over the suit properties and hence, he had no right to execute the Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the Plaintiff. In other words, neither Ayyasamy Udaiyar nor Manickammal had or have any right, title, or possession over the suit properties. Accordingly, 2^nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

4.During the pendency of the suit, the original sole Plaintiff - Manickammal passed away on December 06, 2021, leaving behind her four sons, namely, Veeramani, Ramesh, Murugan and Sivakumar and one daughter Shanthi as her legal heirs. Further, out of the four sons, Sivakumar passed away leaving behind his wife - Arulmoli and his two sons - Irsuappan and Chinnadurai. According to the revision petitioner, before the Plaintiff's demise, the Plaintiff executed registered Gift Settlement Deed dated July 7, 2020 in respect of the suit properties in favour of her son - Veeramani / revision petitioner / proposed 2^nd plaintiff. Hence, the revision petitioner is entitled to come on record under Order XXII Rule 10 (1) of CPC and accordingly, he seeks permission to continue the Suit by impleading him as the 2^nd plaintiff.

5.In the Petition, the 2^nd Respondent filed his counter and the 1^st Respondent adopted the same. The contention of the respondents 1 and 2 in the counter is that the alleged Gift Settlement Deed dated July 7, 2020 is false and no possession was handed over pursuant to the same, and that the Plaintiff died leaving behind her four sons and one daughter and hence, all of them being her legal heirs are necessary parties to the proceedings. Since they were not impleaded as parties in the said petition, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.The Trial Court after hearing both sides accepted the contentions of the Respondents 1 and 2 and held that all the legal heirs of Manicakammal are necessary parties to the proceedings and without impleading them as parties to the petition, the petition is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the revision petitioner - Veeramani has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7.Mr.T.Sezhian, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of her elder son - Veeramani who is the proposed party on July 7, 2020. The other legal represen