G.A. RAJARAM Vs. R. ANANTARAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision proceeding involves a question of some interest on the precise principle of O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C., in the context of a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts, as between partners, in which one partner is the bead of a Hindu joint family including the son. It is the son of this partner (plaintiff), who now prays that he may be formally impleaded in the suit, on the principle of O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C., as a proper party even if he is not a necessary party and permitted to be in touch as a party on record with the course of the litigation. Curiously enough the other partners who are strangers do not object to this prayer of the son. They maintain a strictly neutral attitude and as the suit has hardly begun their learned Counsel represents that they are not substantially affected by the order one way or the other. Even if the son is impleaded and he files a written statement, they are concerned only with the rights in the partnership business as between themselves and the other partner, namely, the plaintiff. It is the father (plaintiff) who strongly objects to the impleading of the son as a party to the suit, apparently on the ground of some ill -will between himself and his son.

(2.) Certain aspects of the law which have relevance to facts of this kind will be found discussed in a Bench decision of Varadachariar and Pandrang Row, JJ., in Venkataramana v/s. Varahalu, 50 L.W. 681. As the Division Bench pointed out, the principle of the Full Bench in Gangayya v/s. Venkataramiah, 41 Mad. 454=, 6 L.W. 708 F.B. is that a person in the position of a plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for dissolution of a partnership in which the managing member of his family was a partner. But where on dissolution, a managing member partner has entered into an arrangement prejudicial to the interests of his family, the junior coparceners are not without a remedy. Equally, when the managing member has placed himself in an embarrassing position in respect of the assertion or protection of the rights of his family, the junior members are not without a remedy. They can maintain the suit, not merely against their manager, but also against the persons who are in possession of their share of the assets. In the present case, I think that the Court below has taken too strict and narrow a view of the scope of O. 1, R. 10, C.P.C., practically limiting the interpretation of the rule to the words "necessary party". Actually, the rule involves both a narrower scope and wider scope, and while a necessary party, that is, a party without whom a legal decree cannot be passed in a suit, has every right to be included, even a "proper" party can press for such a relief. The Court must primarily consider whether the presence of that party would advance the total and satisfactory adjudication of the lis or the subject matter of controversy. If the presence of such a party would be essential or highly desirable in the interests of justice, the Court has a wide discretion to implead such a party also. In the present case, as I have observed earlier, the other partners (defendants) do not object to the impleading of the son. Even the objection of the father (plaintiff) is nebulous and vague and seems to be based more on an apprehension arising from hostility than anything else. I must make it clear that the impleading of the son as a party does not mean that he can get any right adjudicated by a decree in this suit inter se between himself and his father. It is conceded that this is outside the ambit of the suit and that he may have to file a separate suit for such purpose. But he has to safeguard the interests of the family by seeing that his father (plaintiff) does not compromise the suit to the disadvantage of the family or in such a manner as to whittle down the family asset. In this sense he is a proper party and his presence on record will not impede the suit in any way as he claims no separate right or relief. I accordingly direct that the revision be allowed and the son (revision petitioner) be immediately impleaded as a party to the suit, and directed to file a written statement forthwith. The suit should thereafter proceed to expeditious trial. No costs.