J.S. Sekhon, J. - Ram Kali, plaintiff, has directed this revision petition against the order dated 26th November, 1986 of the Subordinate Judge I Class, Hansi, allowing the impleading of Mst. Santro as a defendant in suit filed by Mst. Ram Kali, petitioner, against per grandfather Ujala. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Mst. Ram Kali, petitioner, filed a suit for declaration against her grandfather Ujala to the effect that she is the owner of the land measuring 104 Kanals situated in village Ghirari, Tehsil Hansi on the basis of family settlement and that the defendant has no concern with the land in dispute, besides that she is entitled to get the mutation of the land sanctioned in her favour. In the said suit, aforesaid Ujala defendant admitted the claim of the plaintiff vide his statement dated 11th September, 1984. During the pendency of this suit, Mst. Santro widow of Randhir the only grand-son of Ujala defendant filed an application for impleading her as a party contending that through a family settlement, aforesaid Ujala had already transferred the property in dispute to his only grand-son Randhir vide civil suit decided on 20th May, 1977. She also referred to the false and baseless suit filed by aforesaid Ujala after the death of her husband in order to restrain her from alienating the property in dispute and for getting a mutation sanctioned in her favour. This application was resisted by Mst. Ram Kali plaintiff by denying that Mst. Santro being the widow of Randhir, or the earlier settlement between Ujala and aforesaid Randhir. It was also alleged that the previous decree dated 20th May, 1977 based on fraud and mis-representation is only a paper transaction. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, allowed this application of impleading Mst. Santro by holding that she is a necessary party for adjudicating effectively the controversy between the parties. 4. Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the finding of this Court in Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad v. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal and others, AIR 1969 Punjab & Haryana 57; Bimla Devi of Hisar v. Municipality Hisar through its Administrater, 1983 HRR 249; Naib Singh and another v. Sada Ram and others, 1985(2) CLJ 374 and Bara Hanuman Temple Durgiana, Amritsar v. Gurbax Lal Malhotra and others, AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana 192, contended that as no relief was claimed against Mst. Santro, she was neither a necessary party nor her presence was required for effective adjudication of the controversy in the suit. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 also supported the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further superimposed his arguments by placing reliance on the findings in Vasdev R. Nhavelkar v. Vishnum Atmaram Gauda and another, AIR 1976 Goa 58. Mr. S.N. Singal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on the other hand, supported the finding of the trial Court by relying upon the findings of the Supreme Court in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 886, as well as of this Court in Gokal Chand and others v. Puran and others, 1978 PLR 403. He also placed reliance on the findings of this Court in Banarsi Dass's case (supra), which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Under the provisions of sub-para (2) of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person may be added as a party to the suit in two contingencies, the first being that he ought to have been joined i.e. when he is necessary party, or, when without his presence the question in the suit cannot be effectually and completely adjudicated, but there is no jurisdiction to add a party merely because that would save a third person the expense and botheration of a separate suit for seeking adjudication of a collateral matter, which was not directly & substantially in issue under the suit into which he seeks intrusion. The very factum that the findings in the suit would incidently affect the intervener is also no good ground for impleading such person as a party. This view finds support from finding of R.S. Sarkaria, J. of this Court (as he then was) in Banarsi Dass's case (supra). It was further held in that case that the plaintiff is the dominus litus i.e., the master of the suit and that he cannot be compelled against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The ratio of the above referred case supports the conclusion of the trial Court in the present case as herein the controversy involves the determination of ownership of the disputed land which initially belonged to Ujala, respondent, but he transferred it in favour of his grand-son Randhir through a decree of the Civil Court dated 19th April, 1977. Thus, aforesaid Ujala could not transfer the same property to his grand-daughter Ram Kali as he is trying to do so in the present case. 6. In Bimla Devi's (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the controversy related to granting of an injunction restraining the Municipality for demolishing the property in dispute, but part of that property belonged to the State of Haryana. Under these circumstances, it was held that the State of Haryana was not a necessary party as no relief was claimed against it. 7. The findings of this Court in Naib Singh's case (supra) are also not applicable to the facts of the case in hand, as therein the controversy related to the transfer of the disputed plots on the basis of sale deeds and the order of the trial Court allowing Sheo Ram and the other brother of Naib Singh and Baldev Singh plaintiffs was set aside in view of the factum that he was neither a party to the said sale deed and nor it could be said that the controversy could no be effectively decided without impleading him as such. 8. The findings of the Division Bench of this Court in Bara Hanuman's case (supra) rather support the findings of the trial Court in the present case as therein also it was held that Gur Parshad being in actual possession and management of the Trust, was a necessary party, even though the Advocate General while granting sanction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held to be not a necessary party. 9. The finding of the Additional Judicial Commissioner Goa in Vasudeva R. Nhavelker's case (supra) are also not attracted to the facts of the case in hand, as therein in a suit for redemption, no relief was sought against the party which itself sought to be impleaded as defendant subsequently. 10. On the other hand, the Supreme Court in Razia Begum's case (supra) had held in the suit for declaration of status of the parties as husband and wife, another person claiming wife of the same person is a necessary party, but in suit relating to property such person should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject-matter of the litigation. In the present case also Mst. Santro had direct interest in the property in dispute having inherited the same from her husband after the latter's death. 11. The findings of S.P. Goyal, J. (as he then was) of this Court in Gokal Chand's case (supra), also support the conclusion of the trial Court in the case in hand, because in that case it was held that the controversy essentially related to the inheritance of one Gazi and for effectual and complete adjudication of the matter, the impleading of another heir to the estate of Gazi was well justifiable. 12. The decision of this Court in Civil Revision Nos. 337 and 338 of 1988 Bhagwanti v. Gurmit Kaur and others, decided on 2nd August, 1988 is also not attracted to the facts of the present case, as therein the controversy related to the impleading of a party in a suit for redemption of mortgaged land wherein no relief was sought against that party. 13. There is no dispute that in the present case the controversy relates to the factum whether Ujala had transferred the land in dispute to his grand-son Randhir earlier or he has transferred the same to his grand-daughter Mst. Ram Kali, plaintiff in the present case. Thus, without impleading the widow of aforesaid Randhir, the above referred controversy cannot be effectively and completely decided. The mere factum that Ujala had filed a suit for declaration against the widow of his grand-son Randhir is not of much consequence. 14. For the forgoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition the same is hereby dismissed, but the parties are left to bear their costs. Petition dismissed.