C NARAYANASWAMI NAIDU Vs. NSUBBARAMULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Petition by the first defendant against the order of the District Munsif of Poonamallee in O.S. No. 247 of 1932 adding the present first respondent as third plaintiff. The ground on which the first respondent asked to be added was that his maternal uncle had undertaken to finance the plaintiffs suit, that there was an agreement that in the event of their winning the plaintiffs should convey to the maternal uncle a half share in the immoveable suit properties and pay half the moneys that they might recover from the defendant for costs and mesne profits. On the death of his maternal uncle while the litigation was proceeding he (respondent) took his uncle's place and the plaintiffs confirmed the agreement. He said he apprehended that the first plaintiff was about to withdraw from the suit without his intervention. The learned District Munsif allowed the request. "Petitioner claims derivative interest in the suit properties and opposes the withdrawal of first plaintiff from the suit. Second plaintiff supports this petitioner and I think that the petitioner must be added as a party especially in view of the conduct of the first plaintiff in the suit. It is likely that this petitioner will conduct the suit through if added and the real state of affairs can be ascertained so as to completely adjudicate upon the matters in dispute. Musammat Lajwanti V/s. Safa Chand (1925) L.R. 52 I.A. 211 : I.L.R. 6 Lah. 388 : 50 M.L.J. 118 (P.C.), supports petitioner ". This order was passed after opposition by the present petitioner. The case quoted by the learned District Munsif is said to be Musammat Lajwanti V/s. Safa Chand (1925) L.R. 52 I.A. 211 : I.L.R. 6 Lah. 388 : 50 M.L.J. 118 (P.C.). It's a decision of the Privy Council and is in fact completely against the view which he takes. In that case to use their Lordships words: Certain persons who might have been respondents hacked up the plaintiff and were added as plaintiffs, a very unnecessary proceeding, as no decree could pass in their favour.

(2.) An appeal had been preferred in that case to the Privy Council by one Musammat Lajwanti and others and in the judgment their Lordships said they would humbly advise His Majesty to allow the appeal and pronounce judgment in favour of the plaintiff. On the judgment being presented to His Majesty in Council for embodiment in the formal order, the word "appellants" in the plural was used. So, the plaintiff and appellant, Musammat Lajwanti presented a petition to have the order made rescinded and an order pronounced in favour of herself alone. Their Lordships said that the petition must be granted in so far as it prays to have the order in Council made to conform to the judgment pronounced. They also said that by the expression "plaintiff" they meant to denote Musammat Lajwanti alone without the addition of the other appellants. Their Lordships say: It is out of the question that persons who assert that they have a derivative interest in the state of a suit can, by getting added as plaintiffs, be associated in a decree in favour of the person who has the only real title. Here although the persons possessing a derivative interest had got themselves added as plaintiffs their Lordships refused to allow them to figure in the decree.

(3.) As to the meaning of the expression "all the questions involved in the suit" in Order 1, Rule 10(2), Civil Procedure Code, which the learned District Munsif presumably had in mind in passing the order, the elaborate judgment of Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., in Sri Mahant Prayaga Doss Jee Varu V/s. The Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras (1926) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 34 : 51 M.L.J. 148 may be consulted. That was a case where the head of a mutt sued the Commissioners appointed under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act for a declaration that the said Act was invalid and ultra vires, and an application was made to add the Secretary of State for India a party. The learned Judge says at page 40, If the expression in this clause had not been the word necessary , but merely desirable a great deal might have been said for the argument adduced in support of the application. But at no stage of the discussion was I able to understand and the learned gentlemen that argued in support of the application to make out that the presence before the Court of the Secretary of State was necessary . . .. The expression therefore all the questions involved in the suit can only be questions as between the parties to the litigation. The phrase to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle would seem really to indicate that the addition of the party should be ordered only if in the opinion of the Court, in the absence of the party, it cannot effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions.