Judgment DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. This appeal arises out of an order of a Learned Single Judge, declining to grant impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Applicants to whom reliefs were declined, are in appeal. 2. Thesuit has been instituted by the First Respondent against the Second and Third Respondents. The Plaintiffs are a Cooperative Housing Society, registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 and are lessees of a plot of land bearing C.S.No.1/280 of Malabar Hill Division. A building consisting of a ground floor and eight storeys has been constructed on the land. The Plaintiffs claim under an Indenture of Lease executed on 2 July 1963 in their favour in respect of C.S.No.1/280. The First Appellant is one of the lessors, who had executed the lease in favour of the Plaintiffs. An agreement to sell was executed by the owners in favour of the First Defendant on 3 March 1994 in respect of land admeasuring 772 sq.yards, equivalent to 645.45 sq.mtrs. This was followed by a Deed of Conveyance dated 6 September 1994 in respect of the said plot bearing C.S.No.280. The Conveyance was subject to the lease dated 2 July 1963. According to the Plaintiffs, although the Lease Deed refers to an area of 1500 sq. yards as being leased, the area actually leased was demarcated on a Plan annexed to the document which took into account a gradient on the land. Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, the area mentioned in the document would not prevail over the exact boundary indicated in the Plan annexed to the Lease Deed and, the Plan has to be treated as forming part of the document. According to the Plaintiffs, the owners of the property while granting the lease to them, were conscious of the fact that there was a gradient with a drop of about twenty-eight feet making a portion of the land unusable by the Plaintiffs and this was taken into account while demarcating the land demised under the Lease Deed dated 2 July 1963. The case of the Plaintiffs is that since the Lease Deed in their favour is for a term of 999 years, the lessors of the Plaintiffs who were the vendors, who sold the property to the First Defendant were estopped from dealing with the portion of the land which has already been leased out to the Plaintiffs. The case of the Plaintiffs is that since the Lease Deed in their favour is for a term of 999 years, the lessors of the Plaintiffs who were the vendors, who sold the property to the First Defendant were estopped from dealing with the portion of the land which has already been leased out to the Plaintiffs. Hence, according to the Plaintiffs, while both the Lease Deed in their favour and the Conveyance in favour of the First Defendant are registered, the Deed of Lease in favour of the Plaintiffs will take precedence over the registered Deed of Conveyance in favour of the First Defendant. The Plaintiffs claim that they are lawful owners of a disputed plot of land demarcated in red on a Plan annexed at Exhibit ‘A’ to the Plaint and which according to them, forms part of C.S.No.1/280. An order of injunction has been sought against the First Defendant restraining the latter from encroaching on the disputed plot. The reliefs which the Plaintiffs seek in the suit are as follows: “a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and declare that the Plaintiffs as the lessees under the lease deed dated 2 July 1963 of the Cadastral Survey No. 1/280 and more particularly demarcated in Plan appended to the lease deed dated 2 July 1963 being Exhibit C herein are entitled as Lessees to the property comprised in Cadastral Survey No.1/280 including the disputed portion of the land more particularly demarcated in red colour on the plan hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “A”. b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and declare that the Plaintiffs being the lessees of the property comprised in Cadastral Survey No.1/280 including disputed portion of land which forms part of Cadastral Survey No.1/280 and more particularly demarcated in red colour on the plan hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “A” are entitled to a decree directing that and Defendant No.1 its servants, workers and agents be restrained from encroaching upon and be ordered to be evicted from the said plot of land including the disputed portion of the land. c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and declare that the Plaintiffs are entitled to construct a boundary wall on the southern side of the said plot of land marked on the Plan annexed as Exhibit A hereto.” 3. c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and declare that the Plaintiffs are entitled to construct a boundary wall on the southern side of the said plot of land marked on the Plan annexed as Exhibit A hereto.” 3. The Applicants filed a Chamber Summons seeking impleadment to the suit on the ground that the Plaintiffs had made several averments in the Plaint, pertaining to the demised land and on the basis of the lease granted by the Applicants. The Plaintiffs are alleged to be seeking land beyond what has been demised to them. According to the Applicants, the Plaintiffs have proceeded on the basis that the Plan annexed to the Indenture of Lease dated 2 July 1963 earmarked a strip of land admeasuring 127 sq. yards as part of the property demised to the Plaintiffs whereas the factual position is that the land demised to the Plaintiffs was an area admeasuring 1500 sq. yards. According to the Applicants, the strip of land claimed by the Plaintiffs had always been their property which was sold and transferred to the First Defendant in September 1994. A suit has been instituted by the Applicants against the original Plaintiffs to these proceedings, in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for possession. 4. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the Chamber Summons for impleadment principally on the ground that the Plaintiffs are not claiming a declaration of their status or legal character and that the Applicants had sold the disputed portion by a Conveyance to the First Defendant. 5. On behalf of the Appellants, it has been submitted that the basis on which the Learned Single Judge dismissed the application for impleadment is erroneous. The Plaintiffs have specifically sought a declaration that as lessees under the Lease Deed dated 2 July 1963 of C.S.No.1/280, they are entitled to the property comprised therein, including the disputed portion of land, more particularly demarcated in red colour on the Plan annexed at Exhibit ‘A’ to the Plaint. Hence, it has been submitted that there is a specific prayer for a declaration which will directly affect the Applicants. Moreover, the Applicants themselves have instituted a suit for eviction against the Plaintiffs in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. In the suit instituted before this Court, the Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to seek and obtain a declaration about their entitlement in the absence of the Applicants. Moreover, the Applicants themselves have instituted a suit for eviction against the Plaintiffs in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. In the suit instituted before this Court, the Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to seek and obtain a declaration about their entitlement in the absence of the Applicants. In the circumstances, it was urged that the Applicants are necessary parties. Counsel appearing on behalf of the First Defendant supported the contention of the Appellants and urged that there is a difference in the area stated in the Lease Deed and the area demarcated in the map annexed to it. There being an inconsistency, the intention of the lessors at the time of the execution of the Deed would assume relevance and the presence of the Applicants is necessary to decide the issues which would arise in the suit. 6. On the other hand, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs supported the reasons on the basis of which the Learned Single Judge had declined to allow the impleadment. 7. The Learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis that the Plaintiffs do not seek a declaration of their status or legal character in the suit and hence, an order of impleadment was not warranted. This is evident from the following observation in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge : “If the prayers along with the pleadings in the suit are considered, in my opinion, it is clear that the Plaintiff is not claiming declaration of his status or legal character. Even such declaration cannot be granted by this Court as the jurisdiction is conferred upon the Special Court, namely, the Small Causes Court under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act and Bombay Presidency Small Causes Court Act. In fact the Plaintiff’s suit is for removal of the encroachment made by defendant No.1 on the portion marked in red colour. ... Since in the present suit the plaintiff has not claimed declaration as regards his status or legal character coupled with the allegation of the applicants that they have sold out disputed portion by the sale deed to defendant No.1, I am of the view that the applicants are not necessary parties to the suit.” 8. The Learned Single Judge is plainly in error in holding that the Plaintiffs have not sought a declaration of their legal status or character. The Learned Single Judge is plainly in error in holding that the Plaintiffs have not sought a declaration of their legal status or character. By prayer (a) of the Plaint, the Plaintiffs specifically seek a declaration that as lessees under the Lease Deed dated 2 July 1963 of C.S.No.1/280, and more particularly demarcated in the Plan appended to the Lease Deed, they are entitled to the property comprised therein, including the disputed portion of land, demarcated in red colour on the Plan annexed at Exhibit ‘A’ to the Plaint. This declaration about the extent of the interest which the Plaintiffs claim would directly affect the Applicants and would require their presence for a full, final and complete adjudication of the issues which arise in the suit. The Applicants, as already noted earlier, have instituted a suit for eviction in the Small Causes Court. An adjudication in the suit instituted before this Court, in the absence of the Applicants would seriously affect the position of the Applicants. 9. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 SCC 524 , involves a case where a notice that was issued by the Municipal Corporation did not relate to the structure itself, but to certain Chattels. The original lessee from the landlord had no direct interest in that property. In these circumstances, it was held that the Second Respondent had no direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation and the addition of the Second Respondent would cause serious prejudice to the Appellant. This decision has been subsequently explained in Aliji Momonji & Co. vs. Lalji Mavji (1996) 5 SCC 379 . The Plaintiff is undoubtedly dominus litus and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to litigate unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law enunciated in Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal AIR 2005 SC 2813 , the Supreme Court observed that the Legislature clearly meant that the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must only be gone into. In Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal AIR 2005 SC 2813 , the Supreme Court observed that the Legislature clearly meant that the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must only be gone into. In other words, controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other call for adjudication and not controversies which may arise between the Plaintiff/Appellant and the Defendants inter se or questions between the parties to the suit and a third party. 10. For the reasons which we have already indicated, we have come to the conclusion that the presence of the Applicants is necessary to adjudicate upon the issues which would arise in the suit and any adjudication in the absence of the Applicant would be a matter of serious prejudice. 11. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Learned Single Judge was in error in dismissing the Chamber Summons. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. In consequence, the judgment of the Learned Single Judge is set aside and the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendments shall be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the Notice of Motion does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.