JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the applications filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC have been allowed. 2. Facts in brief may be noticed thus : petitioner Brij Mohan Chhangani filed a suit against his two brothers Kripa Shanker and Satya Narain and his sister Smt. Asha for partition of a house situated at Goydani Para, Jaisalmer claiming the same as belonging to Kishan Lal, their father and having ¼th share in the said property. 3. The written statements were filed by Kripa Shanker, Satya Narain and Smt. Asha; while Kripa Shanker supported the version of the plaintiff qua share but opposed on the nature of property, Satya Narain and Smt. Asha opposed the same. 4. An application was filed by Satya Narain under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment of his son Narendra Chhangani as party to the suit with the averments that the suit property was in possession of Narendra Chhangani; there has been a family settlement dated 06.10.1984 between Kishan Lal Ji and his children (plaintiff and defendants), wherein, the suit property fell to the share of Kishan Lal Ji, who has executed Will in favour of Narendra Chhangani, who is a necessary party and without impleading him, the issues involved in the suit cannot be decided. 5. Where after, applicant Narendra Chhangani also filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment on similar grounds. 6. A reply to the applications was filed by the plaintiff opposing the same; it was, inter alia, claimed that the applicant was not a necessary or proper party; the Will as alleged was not executed and the same was concocted; it was also claimed that in case the applicant is impleaded as party, the suit would change into title suit. 7. Defendant - Kripa Shanker also filed reply and opposed the applications. 8. 7. Defendant - Kripa Shanker also filed reply and opposed the applications. 8. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that though the plaintiff has claimed the suit property as belonging to late Kishan Lal, his father, it has not been indicated as to whether the property was self acquired property of Kishan Lal or was his ancestral property; however, defendant No. 1 has taken a plea that the property belonged to his grandfather and the said property was received by Kishan Lal on death of his grand-father; the trial court also came to the conclusion that the family settlement and partition has been accepted by the plaintiff and the defendants and the case is that the Will dated 09.08.2002 is a fraudulent document; though the right of Kishan Lal to execute the Will has not been questioned and the issue regarding validity of Will can only be examined after impleading Narendra Chhangani as party; consequently, the trial court allowed the applications and permitted impleadment of Narendra Chhangani as party. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court fell in error in allowing the applications filed by the defendant No. 2 and the applicant; it was, inter alia, submitted that the applicant was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit and the impleadment would result in converting the suit for partition into a title suit, which is not permissible; it is further submitted that petitioner is dominus litis and he cannot be forced to contest the suit against a person he does not desire to and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming the property as that of late Kishan Lal, his father and further claimed that on his death, the property vested in his sons and daughter in equal share. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming the property as that of late Kishan Lal, his father and further claimed that on his death, the property vested in his sons and daughter in equal share. The defendant No. 1 claimed the property as ancestral as is evident from his written statement (Annexure-2) and the said defendant in his written statement itself admitted execution of family settlement dated 06.10.1984 and made allegations about intentions of defendant No. 2 to grab the property and regarding his claim of a Will in favour of his son Narendra Chhangani; further the plea has been raised regarding the Will being ineffective qua the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 in his written statement (Annexure-3) also took a plea of Will in favour of his son Narendra Chhangani. Defendant No. 3 Smt. Asha, the sister also made specific averments regarding the execution of Will in favour of Narendra Chhangani. 12. In view of above state of pleadings, wherein, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had raised plea regarding execution of Will in favour of Narendra Chhangani and defendant No. 1 raising plea regarding claim of a Will in favour of Narendra Chhangani and the fact that the property was ancestral, it cannot be said that the plea regarding existence of the Will was raised for the first time either by defendant No. 2 or by the applicant by way of application under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC. 13. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be converted into a title suit has apparently no basis, inasmuch as, in view of the pleadings of the parties, the issue is very much before the Court and any finding to be recorded by the trial court either regarding nature of the suit property, right of Kishan Lal to execute a Will or the validity of the Will would necessarily affect the rights of Narendra Chhangani, in whose absence, the trial court would not be able to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 14. 14. Further the plea raised by counsel for the petitioner regarding the plaintiff being dominus litis has apparently no application to the present case, inasmuch as, once the Court comes to the finding that the applicant is a necessary/proper party, even on its own motion, the Court is entitled to implead the said person as party while exercising powers under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC and, the trial court having come to the said conclusion, the order passed does not call for any interference. 15. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Shri Raj Kumar alias Rajinder Singh v. Smt. Bimla Kumari & Anr., AIR 1991 P&H 303 has no application to the facts of the present case, wherein, in the written statement already filed, the issue pertaining to Will in favour of Narendra Chhangani has already been raised by the defendants. 16. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******