Facts: The appellant filed a suit
against the third respondent for the declaration that she was his lawfully
married wife and is entitled to receive from him Rs. 2,000/- per month as
Kharche Pandan. The third respondent filed his written statement admitting the
claim, but on the same date respondents 1 and 2 made an application under 0. 1,
R.10(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded
in the suit as defendants on the grounds that they were respectively the
wife and son of the third respondent, that they
were interested in denying the appellant’s status as wife and
the status of her children is the legitimate children of the third
respondent, that the suit was the result of a collusion between the appellant
and the third respondent and that if the appellant was declared to
be lawfully wedded to the third respondent, the rights and
interests of respondents 1 and 2 in the estate of the 3rd respondent would be affected.
The application was contested by both the appellant and the third respondent.
The lower Court has
held that respondents 1 and 2 are proper parties to the suit, so the petitioner
filed the revision petition.
Issue: whether respondents 1 and 2 are interested
parties in the subject of litigation which the petitioner claims in the suit?
Analysis: O. 1, R. 10, Code of Procedure states that
the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party, order that the name of any person who ought to
have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before
the Court may be necessary, in order to enable the court effectually and
completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit
i.e. it includes both necessary and proper parties. Necessary parties are
parties who ought to have been joined, i.e. parties necessary for the
constitution of the suit without whom no decree at all can be passed. Proper
parties are those whose presence enables the Court to adjudicate more
effectually and completely the questions involved in the suit. The object of
the provision is that the real dispute raised in the suit should be decided in
the presence of all the parties interested in the dispute and for that purpose,
they should be brought before the Court in order to avoid multiplicity of suits
and there should be affectual and complete adjudication of the dispute.
In Secretary of State
v. Murugesa Mudaliar, a new party can implead as a defendant even against the
plaintiff’s consent in a fit and proper case as it is not fair to give the judgement
without the presence of the parties which are important to the case and a
decision will impact them in a way.
When a marriage is
proved valid, it is valid for all purposes like the social status, property,
legitimacy of children etc. The declaration may not confer on the petitioner
any present interest in the property of the 3rd respondent but does confer on
herself and her children certain legal rights -the right to succeed the father,
during their minority they have a right to be maintained by their father. The
declaration which the petitioner seeks, thus carries with it very important
legal incidents. Respondents 1 and 2, as the lawful wife and the legitimate
child, will have similar rights as the petitioner and her children will have so
in this case the 3rd respondent predeceases the 2nd respondent intestate, his
share in the estate of his father will be affected ( it will be reduced).
So it would be unfair
that the persons who are so closely related to the 3rd respondents be denied the opportunity
of contesting the status of the petitioner as a wife. It would also enlarge the
scope of the action or even to change the nature of the suit.
Thus court dismissed
the civil revision petition.
