Judgment :- 1. The question for decision in these revision petitions is the same, namely, whether the court below was justified in impleading the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, as the third defendant in the suits filed by the petitioners. The second defendant in each of the seven suits was assessed to income-tax and the Income-tax Officer forwarded to the Collector of Quilon, certificates specifying the amount of tax due from the second defendant. On receipt of the certificate the Collector caused proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act to be initiated and attached certain properties. The petitioners thereupon filed suits for a declaration that the properties attached did not belong to the second defendant and for an injunction to restrain recovery of the tax from the attached properties. The first defendant, the State of Kerala filed applications in each suit for impleading the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala as additional defendant, to represent the Union of India. The applications were opposed by the plaintiffs but the court below allowed the same. The plaintiffs have therefore filed these revision petitions. 2. The reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge can be gathered from the passage extracted below: "In this case even though the suit has been ingenuously framed as one for declaration that the properties of the plaintiff are not answerable for arrears of income-tax due from the second defendant, ultimately the question will arise as to whether the second defendant is liable for any dues and if so what. The Income-tax Department is directly concerned with matters in dispute in this case. It is a subject concerned with the Central Government. Hence the prayer of the first defendant-State to have the Income-tax Commissioner also on the party array. On hearing both sides I am convinced that the Income-tax Commissioner is a necessary party to the suit." 3. The order of the court below cannot be supported. Under Order I, R.10(2), Code of Civil Procedure, a person may be added as a party to a suit in the following two cases: (1) when he ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant and is not so joined or (2) when without his presence the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided. It has been held in Jaleel Sahib v. N. S. Srinivasan (AIR. 1951 Mad. 665) that the court has no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case. It has been held in Jaleel Sahib v. N. S. Srinivasan (AIR. 1951 Mad. 665) that the court has no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case. Earlier decisions on the point are referred to and relied on in this decision. In Mosal Marsdel (1892) 1 Ch. 487) it was held that a person should not be added as a defendant in a suit merely because he would be incidentally affected by the judgment. The learned Subordinate Judge is wrong in saying: "the question would arise as to whether the second defendant is liable for any dues and if so what." The liability of the second defendant is not questioned by the plaintiffs. All that they want is a declaration that the properties proceeded against under the Revenue Recovery Act belong to them and not to the second defendant. It is also incorrect to say that the Income-tax Department is directly concerned with the matters in dispute in these cases. The Income-tax Department is concerned only with the realisation of the tax. 4. The learned Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the first respondent-State, attempted to support the order on the ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax is a proper party even though he may not be a necessary party. As observed earlier, his presence is quite unnecessary for the decision of the question whether the properties are liable to be attached for the tax due from the second defendant. It has been held in Hiraluximi v. I. T. Officer (AIR. 1955 Pat. 404) that the Union of India is not a necessary or proper party in such cases. 5. It may also be observed that the amount due from the second defendant is a crown debt as pointed out in Doorga Prosad v. Secy. of State (AIR. 1945 PC. 62). Their Lordships held: "Although income-tax may be popularly described as due for a certain year it is not in law so due. It is calculated and assessed by reference to the income of the assessee for a given year, but it is due when demand is made under S.29 and S.45. of State (AIR. 1945 PC. 62). Their Lordships held: "Although income-tax may be popularly described as due for a certain year it is not in law so due. It is calculated and assessed by reference to the income of the assessee for a given year, but it is due when demand is made under S.29 and S.45. It then becomes a debt due to the Crown but not for any particular period." I have extracted this passage to show that, if at all it is necessary to add a party, such party is the Union of India, and not the Commissioner of Income-tax. The relevant provision is contained in S.79 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it is unnecessary to consider this, as it is unnecessary to implead the Union of India in these suits. 6. It follows that the orders under revision must be set aside and I do so. The civil revision petitions are allowed with costs. Allowed.