The court held that parties claiming a share in a property and disputing the relinquishment of their rights are necessary parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, as their presence is essential for the effective adjudication of the dispute.

ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of a Docket Order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally (‘Trial Court’) allowing I.A. No. 524 of 2025 in O.S. No. 205 of 2024 filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein under Order I Rule 10(2) read with section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) to implead them as plaintiff Nos.7 to 9 in the Suit.

2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the Suit. The plaintiffs filed the said Suit to declare them as legal heirs of late Omer Shareef. During the pendency of the said Suit, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein filed I.A.No.524 of 2025 seeking to implead them as plaintiff Nos.7 to 9 in the Suit and the same was allowed by the Trial Court.

3. The petitioners/plaintiffs opposed the I.A. on the ground that the respondent Nos.3 to 5/implead petitioners, being the grandchildren of a person whose son died prior to opening of succession, were not entitled to any share as per the Mohammedan Law and that the right of an heir under Sunni Law cannot be passed as a succession to his own heir or through a bequest under a Will before the original heir has died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the respondent Nos.3 to 5/implead petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, they do not have any share or interest over the suit schedule property. He further submits that the respondent Nos.3 to 5/implead petitioners filed the I.A. stating that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the Suit for declaration as the legal heirs of late Omer Shareef by suppressing the material facts and without arraying the respondent Nos.3 to 5/implead petitioners as parties in the Suit.

5. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 being grandchildren of late Omer Shareef and their claim of having share in the suit schedule property by reason of being legal heirs and successors of late Omer Shareef, is an issue which is fit to be considered during the course of trial in the Suit.

6. The Trial Court held that the Memorandum of Understanding executed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5/implead petitioners relinquishing their rights over the suit schedule property left by late Omer Shareef should also be adjudicated during the course of trial as the fact of relinquishment has been disputed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5/implead petitioners. The Trial Court accordingly found it fit to implead the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the suit schedule property as defendant Nos.3 to 5.

7. It is settled that Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC is grounded in determining whether a party is proper or necessary party whose presence is essential for the effective adjudication of the disputes raised in the Suit.

8. In the present case, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are disputing the relinquishment of their rights in the suit schedule property and also claiming that the Suit was filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein by suppressing material facts, which should be adjudicated during the course of trial.

9. The Trial Court hence correctly finds that the respondent Nos.3 to 5, being necessary parties, should be impleaded as defendant Nos.3 to 5 in the Suit for better adjudication.