(1) This is a petition for revision of the order of the district munsif of vijayawada in i. A. No. 2978 of 1953 in o. S. No. 174 of 1952 directing p. Venkata subba rao to be made a party defendant to the suit in spite of the opposition of the plaintiff, nidumukkala sreeramamurthy. The facts are shortly these: the plaintiff's father had instituted o. S. No. 265 of 1945 on the file of the district munsif's court, bezwada against sri kanyakaparameswari anna satram committee, represented by its 35 members as defendants, for an injunction restraining the defendants from closing certain windows and obstructing or diminishing the access of light and air through those windows to the plaintiff's house and for a mandatory injunction to pull down the obstruction erected by the defendants above the level of the ancient lights claimed by the plaintiff in that suit. There was a compromise in the suit entered into between the plaintiff's father, nidumukkala subbarayudu and gopu seshavataram, the 1st defendant in that suit and the president of sri kanyaka parameswari anna satram committee. According to the plaintiff in the present suit, the anna satram committee was again trying to cause obstruction to the passage of light and air through the windows to the plaintiff's rooms, contrary to the compromise decree that had been passed in o. S. No. 265 of 1945. The plaintiff in the present suit prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pull down the obstructions to the windows and other reliefs. The first defendant to the present suit is sri kanyaka parameswari anna satram committee represented by the president, gopu seshavataram.
(2) The 2nd and 3rd defendants are gopu seshavataram and batchu venkateswarlu, who were impleaded not only as office bearers representing the anna satram committee but also in their individual capacity according to paragraph 3 of the plaint. At the time when the compromise in o. S. No. 265 of 1945 was entered into, the anna satram committee was an unregistered society and therefore all the members of the committee were defendants to that suit. It has since become a registered society of which gopu seshavataram, the 2nd defendant, is the president and datchu venkateswariu, the 3rd defendant, is the secretary.
(3) It was evidently for this reason that the other members of the committee of management of the anna satram were not impleaded as defendants to the present suit. In the written statement originally filed by the defendants, the plea was not taken that the compromise decree in o. S. No. 265 of 1945 was not binding on the anna satram committee, the 1st defendant, by reason of the fact that the compromise was entered into between the plaintiff in o. S. No 265 of 1945 and gopu seshavataram alone without the other members of the committee, who were defendants to that suir, being parties to the compromise. At this stage, p. Venkata subba rao and c. Ramakrishnayya, two of the members of the committee of the first defendanr applied in i. A. No. 2978 of 1953 to be made parties - defendants to the suit in order that they might raise the plea that the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and gopu seshavataram alone in o. S. No. 265 of 1945 was not binding upon the anna satram committee impleaded as the 1st defendant in the present suit. The learned district munsif considered it propet to bting on record the first petitioner, p. Venkata subba rao as a party - defendant to the suit and allow him to raise the plea which the defendants had not taken. P. Venkata subba rao was brought on record as a defendant in order that the interests of the trust might be safeguarded and the necessary defence to the suit might be raised.
(4) It is this order of the learned district munsif that is sought to te revised in this revision petition. It is argued by sri b. V. Ramanarasu, the learned advocate for the petitioner (the plaintiff in the court below) that under or. 1 r. 10 c. P. C. A person may be added as a party to a suit only when he ought to have bten joined as a plaintiff or defendant and has not been so joined or when, without his presence, the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided. He contended that there is r. O jurisdiction in the court to add a party in any other case or to add a party against the plaintiff's consent and in spite of his opposition. It was stated that the plaintiff was dominus litus and took the risk of any defect in the frame of the suit and that he could not be compelled by the court to fight a defendant who is brought on record against his wishes and against whom the plaintiff did not want any relief. A reference was made to prayag dosji varu v. Board of commissioners for hindu religious endowments, madras a decision of srinivasa aiyangar j. There is an elaborate consideration of the scope and meaning of or 1 r. 10 c. P. C. In that judgment. Shortly stated, the learned judge's opinion was that the effectual and complete adjudication specified in or. 1 r 10 refers to a decision only as between the patties to the suit. Inasmuch as the judgment in a suit is binding only inter partes, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead a person as a defendant against whom he seeks no relief. This view of the learned judge has not been accepted in later decisions of the madras high court. In secretary of state v. Murugesa, venkata subba rao j. After referring to the decision in prayag dossji varu v. Board of commissioners for hindu religious endowments, madras ' observed as follows: true, a decision is binding only oa the parties to the suit; but does it follow that a court is bound to decide a dispute in the absence of those persons whom it most vitally concerns? with great respect, i find myself unable to follow the case relied upon by the lower court. The view taken in that case is opposed not only to the plain wording of the section but also to a large body of authority. "
(5) After examining the relevant english and indian decisions on the point, the learned judge came to the conclusion that it was open to the court to implead a new party as a defendant even against the plaintiff's content in a fit and proper case. He agreed with the decision in vydianada v. Sitarama "' that the effective adjudications mentioned in o. 1 r 10 c. P. C. Was one not only between the parties to the suit but a final decision on the dispute after bringing third parties interested in the dispute on record. This view was followed by paranjali sastri,j. In vanjiappa v. Annamalai. I am in respectful agreement with the later decisions of the madras high court. The expression "questions involved in the suit" in o. 1 r. 10 (2) means not merely the questions which are involved in the suit as between the parties originally impleaded. 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. O. 1 r. 10 (2) was framed in order to ensute that the dispute might be finally determined at the same time in the presence of all the parties interested without the delay and expense of several actions and trials and inconclusive adjudications.
(6) In the present case, the 1st defendant, sri kanayaka parameswari anna satram committe, is a registered society. Under section 6 of the act xxi of 1860, a society registered under that act may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal secretary or trustees as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society, and in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion. Where by reason of his having been a party to a transaction or a compromise decree against a society at a time when it was not registered, the president or the secretary of the society is under a personal disability to put forward the rights of the society as such in a subsequent litigation to which the society is made a party, it is, in my opinion, just and proper to allow a person, who is a member of the committee of management of the society and is therefore interested in safeguarding the rights and interests of the society, to be impleaded as a defendant to the suit in order that appropriate defences available to the society might be put forward.
(7) It is in order to avoid a possible conflict of interest and duty by reason of the president having been a party to the previous compromise against the society when it was unregistered, that the court below directed p. Venkata subba rao, a member of the committee of management of the society, to be made a party defendant. In my opinion, therefore, the order of the court below was proper and there are no grounds for interference in revision. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs of the 1st respondent. T. A. B. Petition dismissed.