An independent title claimant is not a necessary or proper party unless title determines relief.

The revisionist challenged the order dated 20 May 2026 by which the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bulandshahr, rejected his application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in a pending Small Causes Suit concerning a shop situated on the ground floor of a two-storey building originally belonging to late Jagdish Prasad Mittal.

The revisionist claimed an independent right in the property on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 22 November 2019, allegedly executed in his favour by the deceased in the presence of two witnesses.

The plaintiff opposed impleadment, relying on a registered Will dated 23 September 2019 and contending that the revisionist was a stranger to the family, had no role in the landlord-tenant dispute, and was seeking to delay the proceedings.

The court below rejected the application, noting that the revisionist had not obtained a declaration from a competent court recognising his rights under the Will.

The revisionist had separately instituted Original Suit No. 45 of 2025 seeking declaration of his rights under the Will, but had obtained no interim injunction.

He also contended that the plaint ought to have been returned under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, since the dispute allegedly involved title.

1. Whether a person asserting an independent right or title in the suit property becomes a necessary or proper party to a Small Causes Suit merely because of such assertion, when adjudication of that title is not necessary for determining the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief?

2. Whether the existence of the revisionist’s competing testamentary claim required the plaint to be returned under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887?

3. Whether the order rejecting impleadment suffered from jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or perversity warranting interference under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887?

Under Order I Rule 10 CPC, a person is to be impleaded only where his presence is necessary or proper for the effective and complete adjudication of the controversy brought before the court; a person asserting an independent title cannot insist upon impleadment merely because his claim concerns the suit property.

In proceedings before a Small Causes Court, the court’s inquiry is confined to the limited landlord-tenant controversy, and an independent title dispute cannot be introduced unless determination of that title is necessary for deciding the relief claimed.

Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, applies where the plaintiff’s right to relief depends upon proof or disproof of a title which the Small Causes Court cannot finally determine; the mere assertion of an independent title by a third party is insufficient to attract the provision.

The Court relied on Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya City Jhansi v. Smt. Jyoti Gangwani and Another, 2026:AHC:1428756, for the principle that proceedings concerning the landlord-tenant relationship cannot be enlarged by impleading a person asserting an independent claim of title.

The Court also recognised that an unregistered Will is not invalid merely because it is unregistered, and that exclusion of natural heirs does not, by itself, invalidate a testamentary disposition; however, those propositions did not determine the question of impleadment.

The revisionist’s claim arose independently from the alleged Will dated 22 November 2019 and did not derive from the landlord-tenant relationship involved in the Small Causes Suit.

Determining that claim would require examination of the Will’s genuineness, due execution, legal effect, and the rights allegedly flowing from it—issues distinct from the limited controversy before the Small Causes Court.

The Court clarified that it was not finally deciding whether the Will was genuine or forged, and that the observations of the court below could not be treated as a final adjudication of its validity.

Since the existing landlord-tenant dispute could be effectively adjudicated without determining the revisionist’s testamentary rights, his presence was neither indispensable nor necessary for deciding the suit.

The competing title claim also did not attract Section 23 because the plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief sought was not shown to depend upon a final determination of the revisionist’s title.

The revisionist’s pending declaratory suit provided the appropriate forum for adjudicating his independent claim, but its pendency did not confer a right to impleadment in the Small Causes Suit.

Impleadment is unwarranted where adjudication of that independent title is unnecessary for determining the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief.

The Court further held that the mere existence of the revisionist’s disputed testamentary claim did not require return of the plaint under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

Finding no jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or perversity in the order dated 20 May 2026, the Court dismissed the revision under Section 25 of the Act.