Nainar Sundaram, J.
1. The third party to the suit O.S. No. 1033 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif of Poonmallee is the petitioner in revision. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the defendant in the suit. From the copy of the plaint furnished in the typed set filed along with this revision. I find that the suit is a simple one for declaration of the possessory title of the plaintiff for the suit property and for vacant possession. The suit is being contested by the defendant and the defendant claims that he has got right over the suit property. This Is evident from the copy of the written statement included in the typed set. The third party-petitioner in this revision filed I.A. No. 1557 of 1981 to implead himself as the second plaintiff in the suit. That application has been dismissed by the court below. Hence this revision.
2. Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the claim of the petitioner is that he is the real owner of the suit property and the plaintiff is only a name-lender and hence the third party as the real owner is entitled to come on record as the second plaintiff. Learned Counsel relies on the following citations:
Gur Narayan v. Sheolal Singh (1919) I.L.R 46 Cal. 566 (P.C.) : 46 I.A.1 : 36 M.L.J. 68 : 9 L.W. 354 : A.I.R. 1918 P.C.140, Yelamanchilli Pitchayya v. Yelamanchilli Rattamma (1929) 29 L.W. 56 : 1929 55 M.L.J. 856 : A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 268 Rupam Pictures v. Changanlal : (1970)72BOMLR827 , Dinanath Kumar v. Hishi Kanta Kumar : AIR1952Cal102
3. On an assessment and analysis of the legal position in the light of the facts of the cases I am not able to spell out any support for the stand of the learned Counsel for the petitioner from any one of the above pronouncements. One of the cardinal rules with regard to addition of parties in a pending Us is that meticulous care should be taken to avoid adding of a party if it is intended merely as a ruse to ventilate independent grievances and enlarge the scope of the controversy in the lis. In the suit as it stands laid and contested by the defendant on record, there is no question arising for adjudication in the suit. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has advanced a case that the real owner is the third party.
On the other hand, the claim of the plaintiff is that she is the owner and she courts the reliefs asked for in the suit and the defendant would put forth an independent claim with regard to the very same property. The question of any one else other than the parties to the suit being the real owner has not at all arisen in the suit and the Court is not seized with such as issue. In this view, it is not possible to bring in the third party, the petitioner herein, in the suit who will be an intruder advancing an independent case of his, which is alien to the controversy already existing in the suit.
4. Except in the case of Dinanath Kumar v. Nishi Kanta Kumar : AIR1952Cal102 , the other citations relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not be availed of by him to advance a general proposition that in every to, a third party, who claims himself to be the real owner, is entitled to come on record to advance a case of his, even though neither a controversy, nor a question, nor an issue relating to the benami nature of the title to the suit property has arisen in the suit. In Gur Narayan v. Sheolal Singh (1919) I.L.R. 46 Cal. 566 (P.C.) : 46 I.A. 1 : 36 M.L.J. 68, there was a consent raised by the defendants with regard to the benami nature of the transaction concerned. In Yelamanchilli Pitchayya v. Yelamanachilli Rattamma (1929) 29 L.W. 56 : 1929 55 M.L.J. 856, the first defendant in the suit raised a controversy that the money lent on the mortgage concerned belonged to a third party and that the plaintiff, who laid the suit on the mortgage was only a benamidar and was not entitled to a decree. In Rupam Pictures v. Changanlal : (1970)72BOMLR827 , the question of benami was in issue. There are observations in the said judgment that if the real owner wants to intervene in the action instituted by the plaintiff against a benamidar, there should not be certainly any objection to his being added as a party. But, ultimately on the ground that the applicant who wanted the third party to be added on as a party was only the defendant, the learned single Judge did not countenance such an application. Even the above observations would have relevancy on the facts of that case, because the question of benami was a fact in issue in that case. In the fourth case relied on by the learned c counsel for the petitioner Dinanath Kumar v. Nishi Kanta Kumar : AIR1952Cal102 . the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court permitted a third party in a suit on a mortgage, after the passing of the preliminary decree to be added on as a plaintiff in the place of the original plaintiff on the allegation that the plaintiff was only a benamidar for him. The reasoning is found in paragraph 2 of the judgment and there it is stated that such an addition will save multiplicity of proceedings and obviate much needless harassment to the mortgagors, who are not challenging the right of the third party. First of all it must be pointed out such is not the factual position here, because, the defendant does not for a moment admit the claim of the third party that he is the real owner and the plaintiff on record is only a benamidar for him. Even otherwise, the above observations cannot be culled out of context of that case to state an universal proposition that in every case where a third party intruder alleges that a party on record in a psnding suit is a banamidar for him, even though there is no issue involved in the suit, the third party should be brought In to agitate his independent cause in the suit. As stated above, one of the cardinal principles governing addition of parties is that in the absence of a controversy, a question or an issue relating to benami nature of the title or transaction in the suit, the controversy in the lis at the instance of a third party should not be enlarged so as to ventilate independent grievances of such third party. May be avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings can be a reason for addition of parties in appropriate cases, but that by itself could not form the ground for bringing in a third party intruder into the suit whose claim is completely alien to the questions involved in the suit. For all the above reasons, I am not able to persuade myself to entertain this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed.
5. Mr. R.S. Venkatashari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that there are observations in the fair order of the Court below that the petitioner, the third party to the suit, has not made out his case with regard to the title claimed by him and the learned Counsel apprehends that these observations are likely to be put against his client in any independent action he may be advised to take to safeguard his rights. It is needless to point out that such observations are there only to serve the limited purpose of adjudicating the question as to whether the third party could be permitted to come on record in the suit and such observations cannot be taken to have decided the claim of the third party, the petitioner herein, finally on the question of his alleged title and there is no warrant for apprehension in the mind of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that these observations will be put against his client in any independent suit which he may choose to file to safeguard the rights claimed by him.