E R CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR Vs. RAJAMBAL AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore alloweing the application of defendant 4 made under O. 1, R. 10(2), C. P. C. for striking her out as party improperly and unnecessarily joined in the suit. The suit was for partition, defendant 4 who is the respondent to this petition being the wife of defendant 1, defendant 1 being brother of the plaintiff. Defendant 1 was the managing member of the family. The family had extensive properties and was also doing money-lending business as could be seen from the plaint. The plaintiff impleaded defendant 4 as a party as the person in possession of cash , jewels and certain promissory notes standing in her name, all of which the plaintiff claimed as belonging to the joint family, and as such, liable to be partitioned between himself and defendant

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge following the decision in 'Nilakanta Iyer v. Ramanarayana Iyer', AIR 1949 Mad 410 (A) accepted the contention and held that defendant 4 was neither a necessary nor proper party to the suit and therefore should be struck off the record. The decision in AIR 1949 Mad 410 (A) and that in 'Paramasivam v. Adilakshmi Animal', are judgments, of single Judges of this Court and the learned Subordinate Judge preferred to follow the line of reasoning adopted in the former case, in preference to the view taken in the latter case.

(3.) The simple point for consideration is whether defendant 4 who is the wife of the managing member of a joint Hindu family would be a necessary and proper party in respect of property standing in her name or in her possession in a suit for partition instituted by a member of the joint family. I have no hesitation in answering this question in the affirmative. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, relied on observations made in AIR 1949 Mad 410 (A), the facts of which case, in his opinion, were on all fours with the present case. In this case which was also a suit for partition by a member of a joint Hindu family the plaintiff impleaded his brothers and other members of his family, besides a son-in-law of the family as a party defendant, the cause of action against the son-in-law being that two leases standing in his name were benami for defendant I and that they were really leases in which the joint family had an interest. In those leases the son-in-law had only a half share the other half share belonging to the stranger to the family, though the leases stood in the name of the son-in-law. The decision in 'Annapurna Debia v. Amiya Nath', AIR 1922 Cal 307 (C) and the observation of Sir Asutosh Mookerjee J. were relied upon in support of the contention that the son-in-law was a proper and a necessary party. But the, learned Judge relying on some observations in the said Calcutta decision distinguished that case and other cases referred to and took the view that the claim of the son-in-law was that of an adverse claimant who had no community of interest with the parties to the suit and he was a person claiming paramount title and that, therefore, he could not be considered to be a proper party and that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties. In the other decision in (B) where a third party was impleaded at his re-quest as ,the real owner of some of the properties involved in a suit for partition, the learned Judge held that the addition of the third party who claimed a title in the properties was properly made and that the construction of the language of Rule 10 (2) of Order 1, C. P. C. should be as liberal and as wide as possible and should not be restricted merely to the parties involved in the suit, but the attempt should be always to make parties all persons who may be necessary, in order that there might be a final and complete adjudication of the points involved in the suit.