1 W.P.No.4832/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4832 OF 2011. Chagan S/o Deorao Chate, Age 45 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Tambwa, Tal.Kaij, District Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Krishnaji S/o Chagan Chate, Age 21 years, Occ.Agri. R/o Tambwa, Tal.Kaij, Dist.Beed. 2. Dinkar S/o Trimbak Mundhe, Age 30 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Pahadi Pargaon,Tal.Dharur Dist. Beed. 3. Vitthal S/o Deorao Chate, Age 55 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Tambwa, Tal.Kaij, Dist. Beed. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.M.Chate, advocate for the Respondents. ... 2 W.P.No.4832/11 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.10.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. On 29.8.2011, this Court lhad issued notice for the second time with intimation that the matter would be finally disposed of. As such the same is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondent NO.3/original plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of the suit property and for injunction against the present Respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the said matter, the plaintiff has led his examination-in-chief. At that stage, the present petitioner filed an application purportedly U/o 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. for adding him as a party. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3 W.P.No.4832/11 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a necessary party. The petitiner is the owner of the suit property and the Respondent/original plaintiff is claiming his ownership over the suit property. In such circumstances, as there is cloud over the title of the petitioner, the petitioner is a necessary party. 5. Mr.Chate, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/original plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case, no relief is claimed against the petitioner, as such the petitioner is not necessary party. The petitioner was aware of the litigation since beginning but did not file any such application earlier and choose to file the application only when the case was posted for cross-examination. The learned counsel further contends that the present petitioner has transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and mutation entry to that effect has been taken in relevant revenue record. Now the petitioner can not turn around and contend otherwise. The learned 4 W.P.No.4832/11 counsel further contends that the suit does not pertain to mutation entry or about its dispute but as the defendants were interferring in possession of the plaintiff, the suit was filed. According to the learned counsel, the Court has properly considered all the aspects and has rightly rejected the application. 6. No doubt, the plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case. At the same time, it will also have to be considered the nature of the suit, the relief claimed and the right of the third party in the suit. 7. The relationship between the present petitioner and the original plaintiff is not disputed. The petitioner is the father of the original plaintiff. The plaintiff in addition to the relief of injunction has claimed a substantive relief of declaration of ownership over the suit property. The present petitioner also claims to be the owner of the suit property. Whether the petitioner would be in a position to prove his case is another matter. At this stage, 5 W.P.No.4832/11 the Court is only required to consider whether the third party applicant has got some right to agitate. 8. Taking into account, the fact that the relief of declaration of ownership is claimed, the title of the petitioner (if any) is in cloud. In such circumstances, the petitioner is required to be added as a party. 9. Moreover, the defendants are claiming their right pursuant to the sale deed executed by the present petitioner. In such circumstances also, the petitioner is a necessary party. 10. In view of the above conspectus, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application Exh.57 filed by the petitioner for adding him as a defendant is allowed. 11. Rule accordingly made absolute in above 6 W.P.No.4832/11 terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp483211