Sarojeni Seksena, J.:— Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a suit for declaration against their father respondent No. 4. Petitioner is the brother of respondents No. 1 to 3 and son of respondent No. 4. In that suit since the petitioner was not impleaded as a party, he filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C for impleading him also. By the impugned order the trial court has rejected his petition on the ground that the plaintiff-respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed the suit on the ground of oral transfer of the suit land made by their father in their favour and hence they should be declared owners of the suit land. Alternatively the possession of the suit land is also claimed on account of adverse possession.
2. The petitioner's contention was that the suit land is joint Hindu Family ancestral property. The petitioner has a share in this property. At his back if the suit is decided that will be prejudicial to his rights.
3. Plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed a suit for declaration of their title of the suit land on the basis of oral transfer made by respondent No. 4 in their favour. Alternatively they are also claiming title to the suit land on the basis of adverse possession as they are in its continuous possession for the last 30 years. It is not their case that the suit land is a part of Joint Hindu Family ancestral property. The trial court has rightly held that if the petitioner intends to get his rights adjudicated he is at liberty to file separate suit for declaration to that effect but in this case against the wishes of the plaintiff-respondents No. 1 to 3 he cannot be impleaded as he is neither a necessary nor proper party. The order does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. It has not resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence no merit in the Revision Petition.
R.M.S
Petition dismissed.