P.S. Radhakrishnan vs A. Indu on 30 March, 2007
8.The learned counsel for the parties and the learned
amicus curiae have cited reported decisions of the
apex court and various high courts. We do not find
it necessary to refer to those decisions. For, those
were cases where the apex court and the high courts
on the facts of those cases decided whether the
persons who sought to be impleaded were necessary
parties or not to the respective proceedings.
Whether a person is a necessary party or not depends
upon the facts of each suit and the reliefs sought
therein. But we find it appropriate to refer to one
decision cited by the learned amicus curiae as the
facts of the said case are very close to the facts
of the present suit. The decision is Lilamani v.
Bien Aime Pouchepalliamballe (2000 (1) Hindu LR
(Madras) 374). That was a suit for declaration that
Mat.Appeal 484/2007
8
no child by name Dilcoumar was born to the 1st
defendant through the plaintiff's husband. The child
was not made a party to the suit. It was held that
the suit without the child on the party array was
not maintainable. We are in agreement with the said
conclusion of the learned single judge of the Madras
High Court.