1958 (5) TMI 50 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and discretion of the court to add parties under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether respondents 1 and 2 are necessary or proper parties to the suit.
3. The impact of admissions by the defendant on the need for additional parties.
4. The effect of a declaratory decree on the status of the parties and their progeny.
5. Applicability of Sections 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Discretion of the Court to Add Parties:
The main question was whether the court had the jurisdiction to add respondents 1 and 2 as defendants under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court concluded that the addition of parties is generally a matter of judicial discretion rather than initial jurisdiction. The discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering all facts and circumstances. The court found that in cases involving declarations of status or legal character, the rule of "present or direct interest" may be relaxed to ensure complete and effective adjudication.

2. Whether Respondents 1 and 2 are Necessary or Proper Parties:
Respondents 1 and 2 claimed to be the lawful wife and son of the Prince, respectively, and argued that their rights would be affected by the suit. The court noted that the plaintiff's allegations suggested that the Prince and his family, including respondents 1 and 2, were interested in denying her status. The court held that respondents 1 and 2 were proper parties to the suit as their presence would help unravel the complexities of the case and avoid multiplicity of suits. The court emphasized that the suit was not only in the interest of the plaintiff but also her children, and the declaration would affect the entire family, including respondents 1 and 2.

3. Impact of Admissions by the Defendant:
The Prince admitted the plaintiff's claims in his written statement, leading to the argument that no serious controversy remained. However, the court pointed out that the grant of a declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant it solely based on admissions. The court also referred to Order 12, Rule 6, and Order 8, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allow the court to require proof of admitted facts. The court emphasized that the declaration of status is a serious matter and should not be treated as a mere formality.

4. Effect of a Declaratory Decree on the Status of the Parties and Their Progeny:
The court discussed the implications of a declaratory decree on the status of the plaintiff and her children. It noted that the declaration would affect not only the parties before the court but also their descendants. The court highlighted that the declaration would bind the parties and their privies, including respondents 1 and 2, under Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act. The court rejected the argument that respondents 1 and 2 had no present interest in the estate, stating that the rule of "present interest" does not apply with full force in cases involving declarations of status.

5. Applicability of Sections 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act:
The court examined Sections 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act, which allow for declaratory judgments regarding legal character or status. The court noted that a declaratory judgment under Section 42 is binding on the parties to the suit and persons claiming through them, as per Section 43. The court emphasized that the rule in Section 43 is distinct from res judicata and applies to declarations of status, binding not only the parties but also their privies in blood.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the lower courts did not exceed their powers in adding respondents 1 and 2 as parties to the suit. The exercise of discretion was found to be sound, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the question of costs was left to the trial court to decide based on the ultimate outcome of the litigation.

Separate Judgment:
Syed Jaffer Imam, J. dissented, arguing that respondents 1 and 2 were not necessary parties as they had no cause of action against the plaintiff. He emphasized that the plaintiff's suit was solely against the Prince, who had admitted her claims. He contended that adding respondents 1 and 2 would introduce new issues unrelated to the original suit and that their rights under Mohammedan law would remain unaffected by the plaintiff's declarations. He would have allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the lower courts.