Judgment : The plaintiff has preferred this revision against the order dated 11. 1996 in LA. No.707 of 1995 in O.S. No.94 of 1995 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram. The said I.A. was by a third party to the suit, the 1 st respondent herein, for impleading herself in the suit as 2nd defendant. The 2nd respondent herein is the defendant- Municipality in the suit. By the abovesaid impugned order, the LA. was allowed, and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this revision. 2. Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered on 22. 1996.I have heard both the counsel. 3. The suit is for declaration of plaintiffs title to the suit property and for a mandatory injunction, directing the 2nd respondent-Municipality to change the house tax records for the suit property in the plaintiffs name and also for a permanent injunction restraining the municipality from changing the house tax records in the name of any other person. 4. According to the affidavit in support of the LA. the proposed party claims title to the suit property to herself exclusively under the settlement deed dated 210. 1969 and the plaintiff has no title to it and yet suppressing the said fact, he has field the suit. 5. The court below, on the above said allegation in the supporting affidavit, has held that the proposed party is a necessary party to the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Krishnan v. K.Dharmar and others, 1995 T.L.N.J. 74 and contends that as per the above said decision, the court below ought to have dismissed the said LA. What the said learned counsel submits is that eventhough the first respondent claims title under the settlement deed dated 210. 1969, she has not even filed a copy of the said deed. He further contends that the said settlement deed has been cancelled by the settlor by a cancellation deed dated 30.6.1964 by which the suit property has also granted to the plaintiff. In the circumstances, according to the said learned counsel, the proposed party is neither a necessary nor a proper party. 6. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. First of all even though the abovesaid settlement deed dated 212. In the circumstances, according to the said learned counsel, the proposed party is neither a necessary nor a proper party. 6. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. First of all even though the abovesaid settlement deed dated 212. 1969 has not been filed into court, the existence of the said document is not in question, since even according to the said learned counsel, the said document has been cancelled by the settlor. So, the question that has to be decided in the suit is, who is the owner of the suit property, whether the plaintiff, or the proposed party, who, even according to the said learned counsel, is only the sister of the plaintiff, when that is the main question to be decided and when the abovesaid municipality also has to come to a decision in that regard, to make necessary record in the municipal register, the proposed party would certainly be a necessary or at least a proper, party. Therefore, there is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. 7. Krishnan v. K.Dharmar and others, 1995 T.L.N.J. 74 turned on different facts and the said decision will have no application to the present facts. The suit therein, in which the impleading petition was filed, was for a declaration that the defendant had no right to run the rice mill in the suit property in view of the permit given to the plaintiff alone, and the defendant therein filed the impleading petition for impleading certain persons as additional defendants in the suit on the ground that the defendant therein had filed another suit for in respect of the same subject matter, against the plaintiff, and those persons, and to enable the defendant therein to have a joint trial of both the suits, those persons had to be impleaded. While dismissing the said impleading petition, this Court, relied on Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, and others, A.I.R. 1992 S.C.W. 846, where the Supreme Court, while interpreting the words “...any person ...whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit” in O.1. Rule 10(2), C.P.C. - (such person being known as proper party) - has held that a person to be impleaded as such a party to the suit should have direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The facts of the said Supreme Court case were as follows: The plaintiff therein was in possession of a service station erected on a land held by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as a lessee. The possession of the plaintiff was as licensee of the Hindustan Petroleum Company under a dealership agreement. The plaintiff put up two constructions on the terrace of the property. Notice of demolition was issued by the municipality on the ground that it was an unauthorised construction. The plaintiff challenged the same in an injunction suit. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited sought impleadment in the suit. The Supreme Court, holding that the said corporation, had no direct interest in the subject matter of litigation and was not even a proper party, dismissed the impleading petition. 8. But; in the present case, there is no difficulty in holding that the proposed party has a direct interest in the subject-matter of the suit since she claims to the owner of the suit property and since if her claim is true and if her name is not recorded in the defendant municipality’s register, she would be seriously affected. Further in the above said Krishnan v. K.Dharmar and others, 1995 T.L.N.J. 74, this Court has also observed that the only purpose of impleading petition therein was for a joint trial of the above referred to suits. It is not so in the present case. 9. Further, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the proposed party could only file a separate suit if she wants to establish her title to the suit property and could not be allowed to implead herself in the present suit, cannot be accepted since multiplication of proceedings should be avoided, particularly when the proposed party is only a necessary party, or atleast, a proper party to the present suit. 10. Therefore, Krishnan v. K.Dharmar and others, 1995 T.L.N.J. 74 has no application to the present facts. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is not admitted, but dismissed. CM.P. No.2775 of 1996 for stay is consequently dismissed.