JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Srimati Ram Kali against the order dated January 25, 1972 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, district Fatehpur in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. The opposite parties have not appeared to contest the revision in spite of due notice. 3. Mahabir had filed a suit seeking declaration of his Sirdari rights in certain plots. His case was that he was the heir and brother of the recorded tenure holder Mahadeo who had died. State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha had been impleaded as defendants. Thereafter, Srimati Ram Kali filed an application for impleadment on the ground that she was the daughter of the deceased Mahadeo and also the guardian of Vijay Singh, minor, adopted son of Mahadeo, and both were necessary parties. The trial court rejected this application. 4. The trial court clearly constitutes material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The suit is based on succession to the deceased tenure-holder. The son as well as the daughter of the deceased would be preferential heirs as compared to the brother of the deceased. Thus Srimati Ram Kali as well as Vijay Singh, the minor son, were necessary parties to the suit and should have been impleaded. It is true that Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure leaves the question of addition of parties to the discretion of the Court, but this discretion has to be exercised in a judicial manner and not in an arbitrary manner. 5. It is true that Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure leaves the question of addition of parties to the discretion of the Court, but this discretion has to be exercised in a judicial manner and not in an arbitrary manner. 5. In Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886 a learned Bench of the Supreme Court has laid down the following principles: "As a result of these considerations, we have arrived at the following conclusions : (1) That the question of addition of parties under R. 10 of O. I, of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case, but in some cases, it may raise controversies as to the power of the Court in contradiction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in Section 115 of the Code ; (2) That in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation ; (3) Where the subject-matter of a litigation, is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the Court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy." These principles should be observed by all the revenue courts while considering questions of impleadment. 6. Disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order. The trial court shall implead Srimati Ram Kali and Vijay Singh as parties to the suit.