JUDGMENT P. C. VERMA, J. : Both these revisions are based on the same facts hence they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. These revisions have filed against the order dated 2.2.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suits Nos. 2 of 2001 and 1 of 2001 respectively, by which he has rejected the applications filed by the applicants/ petitioners to array them as defendants in the suits. 3. The suits were filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for declaration of the title and for permanent injunction. As per finding recorded by the learned trial court, the applicants could not prove as to how their interest was involved. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the property is a trust property and the petitioners legitimately can raise the objection in respect of the title either of the plaintiff or of the defendant as the plaintiff could not sell the property to the defendant. So far as sale is concerned, despite the sale the plaintiff himself has filed a suit for permanent injunction and suit for declaration of his title. Therefore, in case the suit is decreed, the alleged sale will be held to be void. The question as to whether the property is the property of plaintiff as inherited by him from Laxmanacharya being his own property of it is a trust property is a subject matter of the suit, which is yet to be decided. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this question was not raised in the plaint. Therefore, it cannot be decided as the suit is collusive one between the plaintiff and defendant. The grievance of the petitioner shall stand redressed if the question as to whether it was self-acquired property of Laxmancharya or it was the trust property is decided in the suit between the plaintiff and defendant before passing the decree of permanent injunction or declaration. Therefore, it is provided that the trial court shall decide this issue while' deciding the suit as to whether the property belongs to trust or the property was self-acquired property of Laxmanacharya. The trial court shall proceed as per provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, it is provided that the trial court shall decide this issue while' deciding the suit as to whether the property belongs to trust or the property was self-acquired property of Laxmanacharya. The trial court shall proceed as per provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, since the applicants/petitioners could not prove as to how they were interested in the suits, therefore, in my opinion, the applications of the applicants/petitioners have rightly been rejected. 5. Subject to the observations made above, the revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.