https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199470 In a suit for declaration of marital status and entitlement to maintenance, the majority view treated impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC as a discretionary power that may extend to persons closely interested in denying the claimed status, where their presence enables complete adjudication. The strict requirement of a direct proprietary interest was held not to apply with full force in status-declaration cases, and the broader scheme of declaratory relief under Sections 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act was relied on to support joinder. The dissent held that the proposed defendants had no present legal interest or locus standi and that a speculative inheritance interest could not justify impleadment. en-us Fri, 23 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2018 16:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199470 In a suit for declaration of marital status and entitlement to maintenance, the majority view treated impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC as a discretionary power that may extend to persons closely interested in denying the claimed status, where their presence enables complete adjudication. The strict requirement of a direct proprietary interest was held not to apply with full force in status-declaration cases, and the broader scheme of declaratory relief under Sections 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act was relied on to support joinder. The dissent held that the proposed defendants had no present legal interest or locus standi and that a speculative inheritance interest could not justify impleadment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199470