JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of the order impugned dated 14.10.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred as 'the Appellate Court'), an application dated 3.8.2011 filed by the petitioner, under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 has been rejected. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in a nutshell, necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the matter in issue, within the confines of application for impleadment, are that a suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff Indermal, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12.04.1980, against Nandram Das S/o Kishandas. Said suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide its Judgment and decree dated 13.04.2011. The defendant Nandram Das preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 13.04.2011, which is pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh. 3. Petitioner-applicant, a sister of the said appellant Nandram Das preferred an application dated 03.08.2011 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking her impleadment in the appeal contending that the property in question was an ancestral property and the defendant singularly did not have right to alienate the same, to the detriment of her rights in the contentious property. 4. The said application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Court below vide order dated 19.11.2016 holding inter alia that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the appeal arising out of the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff. 5. Mr. Hemant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, calling in question, the order dated 14.10.2016, contended that the property in question, namely 18 Biswa land in Aaraji No.525 was an ancestral property as such the appellant, her brother has no right to transfer it; if the petitioner is not allowed to be impleaded as a party and the decree is affirmed, she will be required to file a separate suit for setting aside such sale. Mr. Jain submitted that in such case, petitioner will have to implead not only her brother, but the plaintiff also, which would lead to multiplicity of litigation and complexity. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner have heard Mr. Jain and perused the material available on record, while considering the legality of the order impugned. 7. Mr. Jain submitted that in such case, petitioner will have to implead not only her brother, but the plaintiff also, which would lead to multiplicity of litigation and complexity. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner have heard Mr. Jain and perused the material available on record, while considering the legality of the order impugned. 7. The appeal in question, pending before the Court below emanate from the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, whereby suit for specific performance had been decreed and the defendant had been asked to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Petitioner being sister of the defendant cannot intrude in the present appellate proceedings for her alleged grievances; she could not do so even in the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff. 8. The basic issue involved in the present suit for specific performance is, whether the agreement in question is valid and whether it binds the parties involved therein and not the adjudication of the rights, power or proprietary of the defendant-seller to alienate the same. 9. While deciding an application for impleadment, the Courts are required to be mindful of subtle difference between the "subject matter" of the dispute and "the subject" of the dispute. 10. The present application seeking impleadment has been filed by the petitioner, apparently under the anxiety of having a common "Subject" without looking at, as to whether the "subject matter" is common or not. 11. With a view to understand the difference between the two, we must first thresh out and understand the meaning of the expressions "subject" and "subject matter". 12. The term "Subject" in simple words means "a person or a thing that is being discussed, studied or dealt with" whereas the expression "subject matter" means a matter presented for consideration in a discussion. Term "subject matter" has been defined in IIIrd Edition of Law Lexion as under:- "the subject matter in a litigation is the right, which one party claims as against the other and demands the judgment of the Court upon it." 13. The term "Subject matter" has come up for consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of Kaloot Sao and Anr. v. Mostt. (name not known) W/o Munni Sao and Ors. The term "Subject matter" has come up for consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of Kaloot Sao and Anr. v. Mostt. (name not known) W/o Munni Sao and Ors. reported in AIR 1977 Patna 90, and the same has been elaborated as under:- "In other words "subject matter" means the bundle of facts which have to be proved in order to entitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed by him. We accept as correct the observations of Wallis C.J. in Singa Reddi v. Subba Reddi, ILR 39 Mad 987 -(AIR 1917 Mad 512) (FB) that where the cause of action and the relief claimed in the second suit are not the same as the cause of action and the relief claimed in the second suit cannot be considered to have been brought in respect of the same subject matter as the first suit." 14. Adverting to the factual matrix of the case in hand; it is clear that the 'subject' of dispute is 18 Biswa land in Aaraji No.525' agreed to be sold by the plaintiff, brother of the applicant, however, the 'subject matter' in the suit is, "rights of contracting parties", flowing from the agreement to sell dated 24.04.1980. Similarly if the petitioner's sister were to file a suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed, then also the subject would be the same i.e. "18 Biswa land in Aarji No.525" but the subject matter would be "whether the land in question is ancestral or not? and if yes, whether Nandram Das has a right to sell the same. 15. The application for impleadment filed in the present case is misconceived having been filed only on the basis of common subject, completely ignoring the subject matter of the dispute. 16. The above discussion has led this Court conclude that the petitioner does not have any right to participate in the present lis, much less in the appellate proceedings. 17. The order under challenge is hereby affirmed. 18. Goes without saying that the writ petition in hand is dismissed.