RAJARATNAM AYYAR ALIAS BAPURAJAN Vs. HALASYASUNDARAM AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order I am asked to revise is one made in a suit by the plaintiff, here petitioner, for the recovery of possession of properties comprised in an estate, of which the last male owner was one Sundaram Aiyar. The plaintiff's father was, it is the plaintiff's case, adopted by the 1 defendant, the widow of Sundaram Aiyar. The plaintiff sues on the ground that he has been unlawfully excluded from the plaint properties by that widow on account of an invalid agreement entered into between her and the 2nd defendant. The lower Court's order is one made on the petition of the present respondents alleging that they are the nearest reversioners to Sundaram Aiyar and asking that they may be made defendants in the suit. There was in this petition an allegation of collusion between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. But in its order making the respondents parties the lower Court has not referred to any grounds for that allegation or recorded any finding in favour of it; and no stress has been laid upon it in this Court.

(2.) The question then is whether the lower Court's order was one which it was competent to make under Order 1, Rule 10 Clause (2), Civil Procedure Code; that is, whether the presence of the respondents before the Court was necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

(3.) It is clear that one question, and probably the most important question involved in the suit was whether the plaintiff's father's adoption to Sundaram Aiyar was true and valid.