Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the Order dated 04.07.2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Salem in I.A.No.190 of 2003 in O.S.No.144 of 2002, allowing the Application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C ordering impleading of the Second Wife of the Defendant and also the Son and Daughter through the Second Wife as Defendants in the Suit O.S.No.144 of 2002. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners. 2. The Parties are related as under:- 3. O.S.No.144 of 2002:- The First Plaintiff Govindarajan has filed this Suit for Partition of his half share. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Suit Properties, including the Sago Fatory at Veppilaipatti Village are the ancestral properties. The First Plaintiff is entitled to half share in the Suit Properties. But, the Defendant has been refusing to effectuate amicable partition. Hence, the First Plaintiff issued legal notice to the Defendant on 11.11.1998 requesting the Defendant to divide the Suit Property into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff. The Defendant issued Reply Notice containing false allegations. The debt mentioned by the Defendant to the extent of Rs.26,90,000/- is false. The debt was mentioned only with a view to defeat the legitimate right of the First Plaintiff's Share in the Suit Properties. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Partition claiming his half share in the Suit Properties. 4. During the pendency of the Suit, the First Plaintiff – Govindarajan died on 02.07.2002. His Mother – Kandayee, Wife – Kamalam, Sons and Daughters were impleaded as Legal Heirs of the Deceased First Plaintiff, who are the Revision Petitioners herein. 5. Father – Defendant has filed the Written Statement denying the Suit Properties as the ancestral properties. According to the Defendant, he and his Brother – Thangamuthu jointly worked hard, earned money and purchased the properties in their names. Subsequently, they divided the Suit Properties amongst themselves. The Suit Properties and other properties were purchased by the Defendant and his Elder Brother out of their personal earnings. The Suit Properties are the ancestral properties and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any share. Further, the First Plaintiff never made any demand to divide the Suit Properties as mentioned in the Plaint. The Defendant incurred heavy debts for the purchase of the properties and the celebration of marriage of his Daughters. The Suit Properties are the ancestral properties and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any share. Further, the First Plaintiff never made any demand to divide the Suit Properties as mentioned in the Plaint. The Defendant incurred heavy debts for the purchase of the properties and the celebration of marriage of his Daughters. The Defendant has obtained loan to an extent of Rs.26,90,000/-. The Defendant has to pay interest for the above said loan every month and also to discharge the principal amount due to them. No properties are available for partition to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has neither contributed any amount nor extended any physical support towards the improvement of the properties and for the marriage of Daughters of the Defendant. Hence, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any share. Further, the Suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties viz., other Sons and Daughters of the Defendant. 6. I.A.No.190 of 2003:- The proposed parties – Second Wife – Daivanai Ammal and the Son and Daughter through her have filed this Application under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C to implead themselves as the Defendants in the Suit. According to the Petitioners, the Defendant – Palanisamy Gounder married Daivanai Ammal on 11.03.1956 and the Second Petitioner – Gunasekaran and the Third Petitioner – Poongothai and other Daughters are born to them. The Suit Properties are both ancestral properties as well as the self-acquired properties of Defendant – Palanisamy Gounder. The Third proposed party – Poongothai married on 01.05.1991 i.e., after Tamilnadu Amendment Act 1/90 came into force. Hence, the Third Petitioner – Poongothai is also entitled to get equal share along with male Heirs in the Family. Contending that the proposed parties are necessary parties for complete and effective adjudication, the proposed parties have filed the Application to implead themselves as the Defendants. 7. Resisting the Application, the Plaintiffs have filed the Counter Statement denying lawful marriage of Daivanai Ammal with the Defendant. According to the Plaintiffs, the second marraige dated 11.03.1956 is alleged to have been taken place after coming into existence of Hindu Marriage Act,1955. Even if the second marriage is true, the proposed parties cannot claim any share in the Suit Properties as of legal right. The proposed parties are strangers to the family and are not entitled to claim any share from the ancestral property of the Plaintiffs. Even if the second marriage is true, the proposed parties cannot claim any share in the Suit Properties as of legal right. The proposed parties are strangers to the family and are not entitled to claim any share from the ancestral property of the Plaintiffs. Hence, in the Suit for Partition, the proposed parties are not necessary parties. The Application has been filed only to drag on the proceedings at the instigation of the Defendant. 8. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, learned District Judge found that the Suit Properties being ancestral as well as self-acquired properties. Pointing out that the Defendant Palanisamy Gounder and Daivanai Ammal have been living as Husband and Wife from 1956, it was held that the determination of the Suit has definite bearing and legitimate right of the proposed parties. The lower Court was of the view that if the proposed parties are found to be entitled to the share, there could be complete and effective final adjudication only if the proposed parties are added as the parties to the Suit. 9. Aggrieved over the allowing the Application and ordering impleading of the proposed parties, the Plaintiffs have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners contended that when the First Marriage was subsisting, the marriage in 1956 with Daivanai Ammal is void. The main contention is that the Children born of void marriage are not entitled to any legitimate share in the ancestral property. It is further contended that if the suit properties are found to be the self-acquired properties, the proposed parties are not entitled to any share thereon during the lifetime of the Defendant – Palanisamy Gounder. As to the rights of the parties and the status of the child born of void marriage, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 2003 (3) L.W. 197 and 1996 (6) S.C.C. 1963. Submitting that the proposed parties do not satisfy the requirement for being the necessary and proper parties, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners urged to set aside the Impugned Order. 10. The Respondents have been served, but not entered appearance. Submitting that the proposed parties do not satisfy the requirement for being the necessary and proper parties, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners urged to set aside the Impugned Order. 10. The Respondents have been served, but not entered appearance. Supporting the findings and the Impugned order, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the Trial Court has rightly ordered impleading of the Second Wife, Son and Daughter of Palanisamy Gounder and that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. 11. Being the Second Wife and Son and Daughter of Palanisamy Gounder are not the proposed parties necessary and proper parties and whether the Impugned Order directing impleading of the proposed parties as Defendants suffer from any material irregularity warranting interference is the main point that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition. 12. The Suit Properties relate to number of Items and vast extent. The Suit Property is also inclusive of Sago Factory in Veppilaipatti Village, Salem Taluk. The total value of the Suit Properties is estimated at a huge amount of Rs.1,03,00,000/-. The Plaintiff's half share is valued at Rs.51,50,000/-. The Plaintiffs claim the Suit Properties as the ancestral properties. The Defendant claims the Suit Properties to be his self-acquired properties, purchased out of his hard work and his earning. According to the Defendant, he has also the burden of heavy debts to an extent of Rs.26,90,000/-. 13. In consideration of the pleas set forth by both parties, character of the Suit Properties viz., - Whether they are the ancestral properties is the main issue involved in determining the Suit. 14. In their Counter Statement, the plaintiffs have alleged that the First Petitioner Daivanai Ammal is not the legally wedded Wife and that she is only concubine of the Defendant. According to the Plaintiffs, the marriage, if any, is alleged to have taken place on 11.03.1956 is after the coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Since the First Wife of the Defendant viz., Kandayee @ Ammani Ammal is alive, any marriage with Daivanai Ammal (when the spouse is living) is void. According to the Plaintiffs, the marriage, if any, is alleged to have taken place on 11.03.1956 is after the coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Since the First Wife of the Defendant viz., Kandayee @ Ammani Ammal is alive, any marriage with Daivanai Ammal (when the spouse is living) is void. Placing reliance upon Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, onbehalf of the Revision Petitioners, it is contended that the Second and Third Proposed parties viz., the Son and Daughter of the Defendant through Daivanai Ammal could claim share only in self-acquired property of the Defendant; that too not during the lifetime of the Defendant. Under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, notwithstanding that the marriage is null and void,(under Section 11 of the Act) any child of such marriage, who would have been legitimate if the marriage has been valid shall be legitimate whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment Act) 1976. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act enacts a complete Code with regard to the children of void or voidable marriages. First, it declares the status of such a child as legitimate. Secondly, it recognises their right to the property of their parents. The provision is for the benefit of the children and will have to be applied in full so as to confer status with property. The provision removes the disability of such children so far as the property of their parents is concerned. Thus, the Second and Third Petitioners are the legitimate children of Palanisamy Gounder. The Amendment Act 1990 came into force on 25.03.1989. Under Section 29-A of the Amendment Act, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6 of the Act, the daughter of a co-parcener shall by birth become a co-parcener in her right in the same manner as the Son have the same rights in the co-parcenery property. 15. The Third Petitioner - Poongothai was married on 01.05.1991 after Tamilnadu Amendment Act 1/90. Accordingly, third Petitioner – Poongothai claims a share in the Suit Property. Claiming a share, the Second and Third Petitioners – being the Son and Daughter of Defendant Palanisamy Gounder seek to implead themselves being the legitimate Son and Daughter of Palanisamy Gounder. 15. The Third Petitioner - Poongothai was married on 01.05.1991 after Tamilnadu Amendment Act 1/90. Accordingly, third Petitioner – Poongothai claims a share in the Suit Property. Claiming a share, the Second and Third Petitioners – being the Son and Daughter of Defendant Palanisamy Gounder seek to implead themselves being the legitimate Son and Daughter of Palanisamy Gounder. The Second and Third Petitioners and the First Petitioner - Daivanai Ammal being the Wife of Defendant have tangible interest in the adjudication of the dispute and hence, necessary parties to the Suit. 16. Assailing the Impugned Order in impleading the proposed parties, onbehalf of the Revision Petitioners, two fold contentions are advanced; i.The child born of void marriage presumed to be legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, those children could claim share only in the self-acquired property of the parent and not entitled to share in the ancestral property; ii.Even if the Suit Properties are proved to be the self-acquired properties, the proposed parties are not entitled to claim any share in the Suit Properties during the lifetime of Father and Defendant and hence the proposed parties are not necessary parties to the Suit. 17. The above argument though appears to be acceptable, a careful consideration of the same it is clear that the above argument has no force. It is the contention of the Defendant that the Suit Properties have been jointly purchased by him and his Brother – Thangamuthu and the Suit Properties are the self-acquired properties. In the light of the defence set forth by the Defendant, the main issue involved in the Suit is the determining of the Character of the Suit Properties. For effective adjudication, the proposed parties viz., the Second Wife and the Son and Daughter born through her are necessary parties. If the proposed parties are found to be entitled to any share, there cannot be adjudication without impleading them as parties to the Suit. 18. Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C is the provision which enables the Court to add a person as party at any stage in the proceedings if the presence of such person is necessary to decide, adjudicate all questions, involved in the Suit. We may usefully refer to the following passage in the decision reported in SAMPAT RAJ ..VS.. 18. Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C is the provision which enables the Court to add a person as party at any stage in the proceedings if the presence of such person is necessary to decide, adjudicate all questions, involved in the Suit. We may usefully refer to the following passage in the decision reported in SAMPAT RAJ ..VS.. MADHU SINGH (A.I.R. 1960 M.P. 84): "The test is not whether the joinder of the person proposed to be added as a defendant would be according to or against the wishes of the plaintiff or whether the joinder would involve an investigation into a question not arising on the cause of action averred by the Plaintiff. It is whether the relief claimed by the Plaintiff will directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his rights.... The intervener must be directly and legally interested in the answers to the questions involved in the case." In another decision reported in RAMESH HIRACHAND KUNDAMMAL ..VS.. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY ( 1992 (2) S.C.C. 524 ), the Supreme Court held that the resistence of the Plaintiff to join the new party may not be a relevant consideration if the proposed party's rights are likely to be affected by the ultimate decision. 19. The adjudication of the dispute in the Suit determining the character of the Suit Properties directly affects rights and interests of the proposed parties. Learned District Judge, Fast Track Court has rightly directed the impleading of the proposed parties. In the Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court would interfere only when there is jurisdictional error or whether the Court finds that the Impugned Order is based on no material. The order directing impleading of the proposed parties does not suffer from any such jurisdictional error or improper exercise of discretion and warranting interfere. This Civil Revision Petition has no merits and is bound to fail. 20. When the matter came up for orders, it was informed that the Fifth Revision Petitioner Kandayee @ Ammani Ammal died on 15.07.2005. The death of the Fifth Revision Petitioner is recorded. The Plaintiffs are directed to take appropriate steps for impleading the Legal Representatives of the Deceased in the Suit in O.S.No.144 of 2002, pending on the file of the Fast Track Court, Salem. 21. The death of the Fifth Revision Petitioner is recorded. The Plaintiffs are directed to take appropriate steps for impleading the Legal Representatives of the Deceased in the Suit in O.S.No.144 of 2002, pending on the file of the Fast Track Court, Salem. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 04.07.2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Salem in I.A.No.190 of 2003 in O.S.No.144 of 2002 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.13184 of 2003 is also dismissed. The Plaintiffs are directed to take appropriate steps for amending the Plaint, impleading the proposed parties as Defendants 2 to 4. Learned District Judge, Fast Track Court, Salem is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the Defendants and dispose of the Suit in accordance with law. In view of the relationship of the parties and other circumstances, there is no order as to costs.