Persons claiming an interest in the same property are proper parties to a related declaration suit.

The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 120/2019 seeking declaration and perpetual injunction concerning property claimed under an oral gift (Hiba) dated 1 January 1992

After issues were framed, the petitioner’s sisters applied under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as defendants, asserting interests in the same property; they had also filed O.S. No. 73/2020 seeking partition and separate possession

The trial court allowed their application.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227, arguing that the sisters were not necessary parties and could pursue their separate suit

1. Whether the trial court erred in impleading the petitioner’s sisters as defendants under Order I Rule 10 CPC in the declaration and injunction suit?

2. Whether the fact that the sisters had filed a separate partition suit meant they should not be joined in the petitioner’s suit concerning the same property?

Order I Rule 10 CPC permits the court to add parties whose presence is necessary or proper for effective adjudication of the questions involved in the suit.

The court may consider whether proposed parties claim an interest in the same subject matter and whether their presence would assist in resolving the dispute.

In exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court considered whether the trial court’s impleadment order warranted interference.

No precedent was cited.

The High Court noted that the proposed defendants were the petitioner’s sisters, claimed rights in the same property, and had brought a partition suit concerning that property.

In light of those circumstances, the court held that they could not be treated as neither necessary nor proper parties.

Their separate suit did not require their exclusion from the petitioner’s proceedings.

The trial court therefore committed no error in allowing impleadment, and the order did not warrant interference under Article 227.

The writ petition was rejected, leaving the trial court’s order dated 12 November 2024 undisturbed.