R. DHANASUNDARI @ R. RAJESWARI versus A.N. UMAKANTH & ORS. on 6 March 2019

648

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 4 S.C.R.

AR. DHANASUNDARI @ R. RAJESWARI

v.

A.N. UMAKANTH & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 7292 of 2009)

B

MARCH 06, 2019

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908– Or. XXIII, r.1-A r/w Or. I,r.10 – Property in question purchased in the name of partnershipfirm of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 – Firm dissolved– PropertyCvested with the plaintiff– Suit filed by the plaintiff for cancellationof the sale deed, executed by defendant no.1, in favour ofdefendant no.2-appellant, allegedly despite having relinquishedrights in the suit property – Plaintiff died, his 3 sons and 4daughters impleaded as plaintiff nos.2 to 8 – Plaintiff no.5-Drespondent no.1 given power of attorney by his siblings – Suitdecreed ex-parte – Decree set aside, suit restored – In theinterregnum, plaintiff no.5 sold the suit property to respondent nos.2to 4, who moved application for being impleaded as plaintiffs –Allowed, joined the suit as plaintiff nos.9 to 11– Plaintiff nos.2 to 4& 6 to 8 revoked plaintiff no.5’s power of attorney and movedEapplication for transposition of plaintiff no.5 and plaintiff nos.9-11 as defendants – Allowed, plaintiff nos.5 and 9-11 transposed asdefendant nos.3 to 6 – Plaintiffs sought withdrawal of suit –Objected by defendant nos.3-6 who also filed application u/Or. XXIII,r.1-A r/w Or. 1, r.10 for transposition as plaintiffs – Allowed – OnFappeal, held: Or.1, r.10 provides for addition, deletion andsubstitution of parties and the proposition for transposition of aparty from one status to another, by its very nature, inheres insub-rule(2) of r.10 of Or. 1– u/Or. XXIII, r.1, plaintiff may seekpermission for withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part ofclaim– Rule 1-A thereof deals with an eventuality where theGplaintiff withdraws his suit or abandons his claim but a proformadefendant has a substantial question to be decided against theco-defendant – Powers of the Court to grant prayer fortransposition are very wide – Principal cause in the suit ischallenge to the sale deed executed by defendant no.1, with the H

original plaintiff asserting his ownership over the property– In thegiven status of parties, even if plaintiff nos.5 and 9 to 11 weretransposed as defendant nos.3 to 6, their claim against defendantnos.1 & 2 did not come to an end and the suit remained essentiallyagainst the defendant nos.1 & 2– Interest of the existing plaintiffsas also the defendant nos.3 to 6 had been one and the same asagainst the defendant nos.1 & 2 – When the plaintiffs entered intoan arrangement with defendant nos.1&2 and sought permission towithdraw the suit, the right of defendant nos.3-6 to continue withthe litigation on their claim against defendant nos.1 & 2immediately sprang up and they were entitled to seek transpositionas plaintiffs u/Or.XXIII, r.1-A.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908– Or. I, r.10 – Object of –Discussed.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of thiscase, upon the existing plaintiffs seeking permission to withdrawunder Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 haverightly been allowed to be transposed as plaintiffs under OrderXXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC and to continuewith the suit, as originally filed against the defendant Nos. 1 and2. The law of procedure relating to the parties to a civil suit isessentially contained in Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure,dealing with various aspects concerning joinder, non-joinder andmis-joinder of parties. Rule 10 of Order I specifically providesfor addition, deletion and substitution of parties; and theproposition for transposition of a party from one status to another,by its very nature, inheres in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order ICPC.On the other hand, the law of procedure in relation towithdrawal and adjustment of suits is contained in Order XXIIIof Code of Civil Procedure. As per Rule 1 thereof, a plaintiff mayseek permission for withdrawal of suit or abandonment of a partof claim. Rule 1-A thereof deals with an eventuality where theplaintiff withdraws his suit or abandons his claim but a pro formadefendant has a substantial question to be decided against theco-defendant. The object of Rule 10 of Order I CPC is essentiallyto bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute A

B

C

DE

FG

H

650SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Arelating to the subject matter of the suit so that the dispute maybe determined in their presence and the multiplicity ofproceedings could be avoided. [Paras 7-9] [656-F-H; 657-A, D,G, E]1.3 As per Rule 1-A ibid., in the eventuality of plaintiffBwithdrawing the suit or abandoning his claim, a pro formadefendant, who has a substantial question to be decided againstthe co-defendant, is entitled to seek his transposition as plaintifffor determination of such a question against the saidco-defendant in the given suit itself. The very nature of theprovisions contained in Rule 1-A ibid. leaves nothing to doubtCthat the powers of the Court to grant such a prayer fortransposition are very wide and could be exercised for effectualand comprehensive adjudication of all the matters in controversyin the suit. The basic requirement for exercise of powers underRule 1-A ibid. would be to examine if the plaintiff is seeking toDwithdraw or to abandon his claim under Rule 1 of Order XXIIIand the defendant seeking transposition is having an interest inthe subject-matter of the suit and thereby, a substantial questionto be adjudicated against the other defendant. In such asituation, the pro forma defendant is to be allowed to continuewith the same suit as plaintiff, thereby averting the likelihood ofEhis right being defeated and also obviating the unnecessarymultiplicity of proceedings. The present one is clearly a caseanswering to all the basics for applicability of Rule 1-A of OrderXXIII read with Rule 10 of Order I CPC. The principal cause inthe suit is challenge to the sale deed executed by defendant No.F1 in favour of defendant No. 2, with the original plaintiff assertinghis ownership over the property in question. In the given statusof parties, even if the plaintiff Nos. 5 and 9 to 11 were later ontransposed as defendant Nos. 3 to 6, the suit remainedessentially against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, that is, inchallenge to the sale deed dated 23.03.1985, as executed by theGdefendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2. In regard tothis cause, even if plaintiff Nos. 5 and 9 to 11 came to betransposed as defendant Nos.3 to 6, their claim againstdefendant Nos.1 and 2 did not come to an end; rather, theinterest of the existing plaintiffs as also the defendant Nos. 3 to 6H

had been one and the same as against the defendant Nos. 1 and2. In the given status of parties and the subject matter of thesuit, when the plaintiffs entered into an arrangement withdefendant Nos. 1 and 2 and sought permission to withdraw underOrder XXIII Rule 1 CPC, the right of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 tocontinue with the litigation on their claim against defendant Nos.1and 2 immediately sprang up and they were, obviously, entitledto seek transposition as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-ACPC. It is also noteworthy that even if some question is soughtto be raised as regards the rights of the subsequent purchasers(defendant Nos. 4 to 6), the right of the defendant No. 3 (earlierthe plaintiff No. 5) to prosecute the suit as a plaintiff remainsrather indisputable in view of his status as one of the legalrepresentatives of the original plaintiff. The right of the saiddefendant No. 3 (earlier the plaintiff No. 5) to challenge the saledeed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 did not getannulled only by his earlier transposition as the defendant; andhe cannot be considered bound by the arrangement between theexisting plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.The Trial Courtwas justified in allowing the prayer for transposition. The HighCourt rightly declined to interfere.[Paras 10-13] [658-B-H;659-A-E]

Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra (1995) 3 SCC147 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 135 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

[1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 135referred toPara 9

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7292of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2006 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. (PD) No. 10 of 2006.

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, Sr. Adv., M. A. Chinnasamy,Ms. C. Rubavathi, V. Senthil Kumar, P. Raja Ram, Advs. for the Appellant.

Sunil Fernandes, Darpan Sachdeva, P. V. Yogeswaran,A. K. Upadhyay, Y. Lokesh, Babul Kumar, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy,Advs. for the Respondents.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. 1. This appeal by special leaveis directed against the judgment and order dated 12.10.2006, as passedin C.R.P. (PD) No. 10 of 2006, whereby the High Court of Judicature atMadras has upheld the order dated 07.07.2005, as passed in O.S. No.B219 of 2004 by the District Munsif, Chengalpattu allowing the applicationfiled by defendant Nos. 3 to 6 for transposing them as plaintiffs, afterthe existing plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw the suit.

2. The prayer of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 to be transposed asplaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), came to be made and allowedin somewhat peculiar set of facts and circumstances, which could benoticed, in brief, as follows:- C

(a) The civil suit in question was originally instituted in the Courtof the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu by A.C. NatarajaDMudaliar (original plaintiff) against A.V. Manoharan (defendant No.1 -respondent No. 1 herein) and R. Dhanasundari @ R. Rajeshwari(defendant No. 2 - appellant herein) for cancellation of the sale deeddated 23.03.1985, which was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour ofdefendant No.2. This suit was initially registered as O.S. No. 122of 1989.E

(b) The assertions in the plaint had been that the suit scheduleproperty was purchased in the name of a partnership firm M/s SouthIndia Engineering Works of which, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1were the partners; and that the said firm was dissolved by a deed ofdissolution dated 22.05.1971 whereby, the defendant No. 1 A.V.FManoharan was relieved of the assets and liabilities of the firm and thesuit schedule property vested with the plaintiff A.C. Nataraja Mudaliar.It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 A.V. Manoharan, despite havingrelinquished the rights in the suit property, sold the same to thedefendant No. 2 under the impugned sale deed dated 23.03.1985.

G

G

G(c) During pendency of this suit, the original plaintiff A.C. NatarajaMudaliar expired on 19.05.1988 leaving behind 3 sons and 4 daughtersas his legal representatives, who were impleaded as plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8in the suit. One of the sons of the original plaintiff namely, A. N. Umakanth(plaintiff No. 5- respondent No. 1 herein) was extended power of attorneyby his siblings.H

(d) The suit was decreed ex parte in the year 1995 but later on,the ex parte decree was set aside and the suit was restored to theoriginal number. However, in the interregnum, the respondent No. 1 A.N. Umakanth, the power of attorney holder of all the legal representativesof the original plaintiff, sold the suit property to three persons, namelyRamasamy, Dhanam Ramasamy and Venkatasubramanian (respondentNos. 2 to 4 herein) through a registered sale deed dated 04.07.1995. Inview of this transaction, upon restoration of the suit, the said purchasersmoved an application (IA No. 135 of 2002) for being impleaded asplaintiffs. This application was allowed on 21.06.2002 and thereby, thesaid purchasers were allowed to join the suit as plaintiffs Nos. 9 to 11.

(e) However, the other plaintiffs (Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 8) tookexception to the aforesaid transaction of sale by the plaintiff No. 5; theyrevoked his power of attorney and moved an application (IA No. 468 of2003) for transposition of the plaintiff No. 5 and his purchasers (plaintiffNos. 9 to 11) as defendants. This application was allowed on 25.06.2003and, accordingly, the plaintiff No. 5 and plaintiff Nos. 9 to 11 weretransposed as defendants 3 to 6 in this suit.

(f) Thus, at and until the given juncture, the proceedings anddevelopments had been that in the civil suit for cancellation of sale deedexecuted by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2, theoriginal sole plaintiff had expired; his legal representatives came on recordas plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8 with plaintiff No. 5 being the power of attorneyholder of the other plaintiffs; the suit was decreed ex parte and the saidattorney sold the suit property to three persons; when the ex partedecree was set aside and the suit was restored to its number, the saidpurchasers came on record as plaintiff Nos. 9 to 11; and later on, thesaid seller and purchasers (plaintiff Nos. 5 and 9 to 11) were transposedas defendant Nos. 3 to 6. At this juncture and with such change ofcomplexion, the suit was transferred to the file of District Munsif Court,Chengalpattu and was renumbered as O.S. No. 219 of 2004.

(g) After having, thus, been transferred and renumbered withaddition and transposition in the array of parties, the suit in questionproceeded in trial but, when the matter reached the stage ofcross-examination of the defendants’ witness DW-3, the plaintiffs fileda memo seeking permission to withdraw the suit, for the matter havingbeen settled with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Though the defendantNos. 1 and 2 did not oppose the prayer so made by the plaintiffs but A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athen, the defendants 3 to 6 (who were transposed as defendants fromtheir earlier position as plaintiffs) filed objections to the memo forwithdrawal and also filed the application (IA No. 153 of 2005) underOrder XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC with the prayerthat they be transposed as plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 in this suit.

B3. The said application for transposition (IA No. 153 of 2005)came to be allowed by the Trial Court by its impugned order dated07.07.2005 with the following observations:-

“Upon perusing the petition, counter it reveals that theoriginal suit was filed in the year 1989. Originally thepetitioner has filed the above suit as a Power of Attorneyagent of plaintiffs. When the power was in force, the powergiven to the petitioner was cancelled. When the power wasinforce, the petitioner sold most of the suit item. Thepurchasers moved an application to implead themselves asplaintiffs in the above suit and the same was allowed. Laterthe plaintiffs have filed application to transpose theplaintiffs 5, 9 to 11 as defendants and the same was allowed.Later the trial commenced and the plaintiff witness had beenexamined. On the side of defendants 3 witnesses wereexamined. The cross-examination of 2[nd] defendant’s husbandhas been deferred. At this stage the plaintiff and the 2[nd]defendant entered into compromise and filed a memo statingthat the suit is not pressed as settled out of court. Thepetitioner sold the property while the power of attorney wasin force. Therefore the petitioner has interest in the out comeof the suit. When the case is at the tail end and the suit is ofthe year 1989 and if the suit is allowed to be withdrawn thispetitioner has no remedy and is not in a position to get anyremedy in this suit. More over the petitioners if file fresh suit,the said suit will be barred by limitation. When all the partiesto the suit entered into compromise, the court will permit theparties to withdraw the suit. But in this case only the plaintiffand 2[nd] defendant alone entered into compromise. Theremaining defendants are not parties to the compromise. Sincethere is no compromise with other defendants, this court willnot accept as the matter is fully settled.

C

D

E

F

G

H

For the aforesaid reasons and in the interest of justice and tosettle the matter once for all and determine the rights of theparties, this petition is allowed.”

4. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the defendant No. 2(appellant herein) preferred the revision petition that has beenconsidered and dismissed by the High Court in its impugned order dated12.10.2006 while observing as under:- “15…….it is seen in this case that the defendants 3 to 6 whoseek to transpose themselves as plaintiffs, were originallyarrayed as plaintiffs 5 and 9 to 11. On the ground that the5[th] plaintiff (now the 3[rd] defendant) acted against the interestof the other plaintiffs (his own brothers and sisters) in sellingthe suit property to the defendants 4 to 6, the plaintiffs gotthem originally transposed as defendants 3 to 6 in I.A. No.468 of 2003. In other words, the present defendants 3 to 6are subsequent purchasers, pendente lite, they had asubstantial issue to be adjudicated as against the defendants1 and 2, when they were plaintiffs 5 and 9 to 11. By virtue oftheir transposition as defendants 3 to 6, in the year 2003,they cannot be said to have lost their rights to have the samequestion adjudicated as against the defendants 1 and 2. Asa matter of fact, the 3[rd] defendant’s right to prosecute the suitas a plaintiff, flowed out of his status as one of the legalheirs of the original sale relief prayed for in the suit filed, byhis father did not get annulled by his transposition as thethird defendant in the year 2003.

16. If the plaintiffs contest the suit and succeed, suchsuccess would have automatically enured to the benefit ofthe defendants 3 to 6. Therefore, the defendants 3 to 6 canbe said to have an identity of interest with the plaintiffs.

17. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the TrialCourt was right in ordering the transposition of thedefendants 3 to 6 as plaintiffs. Therefore, I find no merits inthe Civil Revision and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.No costs. The connected CMP & VCMP are closed.”

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A5. Assailing the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant(defendant No. 2) has strenuously argued that the transactionconcerning defendant Nos. 3 to 6 having taken place much after theinstitution of the suit, these defendants have no cause of action againstdefendant Nos. 1 and 2 and hence, they cannot be transposed asplaintiffs; that the right of the dominus litus plaintiffs to withdraw theBsuit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC cannot be curtailed, especially whenthey do not seek any liberty to file a fresh suit; and that the subsequentpurchasers have no legal right to seek cancellation of the sale deedwhich was executed in favour of the appellant way back in the year1985. These submissions are supported on behalf of the respondentCNos. 6 & 8 to 11 (the plaintiffs) with the contentions that the subsequentpurchasers have a separate and distinct cause of action, who ought toinstitute a separate suit and have no right to be transposed as plaintiffs inthe present suit.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has dulyDsupported the order impugned with reference to the subject matter ofthe suit as also the developments that have taken place after filing of thesuit and with the submissions that defendant Nos. 3 to 6 have identicalinterest to seek cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendantNo. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2. Hence, according to the learned counsel, when the existing plaintiffs seek to withdraw, the defendantENos. 3 to 6 have a right to be transposed as plaintiffs so as to seekadjudication of their claim against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in relationto the suit property.

7. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rivalsubmissions and having examined the record with reference to the lawFapplicable, we are clearly of the view that on the facts and in thecircumstances of this case, upon the existing plaintiffs seekingpermission to withdraw under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, the defendantNos. 3 to 6 have rightly been allowed to be transposed as plaintiffsunder Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 CPC and toGcontinue with the suit, as originally filed against the defendant Nos. 1and 2.

8. The law of procedure relating to the parties to a civil suit isessentially contained in Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, dealingwith various aspects concerning joinder, non-joinder and mis-joinder of H

R. DHANASUNDARI @ R. RAJESWARI v. A.N. UMAKANTH[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

parties. Rule 10 of Order I specifically provides for addition, deletionand substitution of parties; and the proposition for transposition of a partyfrom one status to another, by its very nature, inheres in sub-rule (2) ofRule 10 of Order I CPC that reads as under:- “(2) Court may strike out or add parties. - The Court may atany stage of the proceedings, either upon or without theapplication of either party, and on such terms as may appearedto the Court to be just, order that the name of any partyimproperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struckout, and that the name of any person who or to have beenjoined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presencebefore the Court may be necessary in order to enable theCourt effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settleall the questions involved in the suit be added.”

8.1 On the other hand, the law of procedure in relation towithdrawal and adjustment of suits is contained in Order XXIII of Codeof Civil Procedure. As per Rule 1 thereof, a plaintiff may seekpermission for withdrawal of suit or abandonment of a part of claim.Rule 1-A thereof[1] deals with an eventuality where the plaintiffwithdraws his suit or abandons his claim but a pro forma defendant hasa substantial question to be decided against the co-defendant. This Rule1-A of Order XXIII CPC reads as under:- “R.1-A. When transposition of defendants as plaintiff maybe permitted.- Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by aplaintiff under Rule 1, and a defendant applies to betransposed as a plaintiff under Rule 10 of Order 1, the Court,shall, in considering such application, have due regard tothe question whether the applicant has a substantial ques-tion to be decided as against any of the other defendants.”

9. It remains trite that the object of Rule 10 of Order I CPC isessentially to bring on record all the persons who are parties to thedispute relating to the subject matter of the suit so that the dispute maybe determined in their presence and the multiplicity of proceedings couldbe avoided. This Court explained the principles, albeit in a differentcontext, in the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra: (1995)3 SCC 147 in the following:- 1Inserted by the Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“7. ….. The object of the rule is to bring on record all thepersons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject-matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presenceat the same time without any protraction, inconvenience andto avoid multiplicity of proceedings.”

B10. As per Rule 1-A ibid., in the eventuality of plaintiffwithdrawing the suit or abandoning his claim, a pro forma defendant,who has a substantial question to be decided against the co-defendant, isentitled to seek his transposition as plaintiff for determination of such aquestion against the said co-defendant in the given suit itself. The verynature of the provisions contained in Rule 1-A ibid. leaves nothing toCdoubt that the powers of the Court to grant such a prayer fortransposition are very wide and could be exercised for effectual andcomprehensive adjudication of all the matters in controversy in the suit.The basic requirement for exercise of powers under Rule 1-A ibid.would be to examine if the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or to abandonDhis claim under Rule 1 of Order XXIII and the defendant seekingtransposition is having an interest in the subject-matter of the suit andthereby, a substantial question to be adjudicated against the otherdefendant. In such a situation, the pro forma defendant is to be allowedto continue with the same suit as plaintiff, thereby averting the likelihoodof his right being defeated and also obviating the unnecessaryEmultiplicity of proceedings.

11. The present one is clearly a case answering to all the basicsfor applicability of Rule 1-A of Order XXIII read with Rule 10 of OrderI CPC. As noticed, the principal cause in the suit is challenge to the saledeed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, withFthe original plaintiff asserting his ownership over the property in question.After the demise of original plaintiff, his sons and daughters came to bejoined as plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8 with plaintiff No. 5 being the power ofattorney holder of all the plaintiffs. After the suit was decreed ex parte,the plaintiff No. 5 transferred the property in question to the aforesaidGthree purchasers, who were joined as plaintiff Nos. 9 to 11 when the exparte decree was set aside and suit was restored for bi parte hearing.In the given status of parties, even if the plaintiff Nos. 5 and 9 to 11 werelater on transposed as defendant Nos. 3 to 6, the suit remained essentiallyagainst the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, that is, in challenge to the sale deeddated 23.03.1985, as executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of theH

defendant No. 2. In regard to this cause, even if plaintiff Nos. 5 and 9 to11 came to be transposed as defendant Nos. 3 to 6, their claim againstdefendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not come to an end; rather, the interest of theexisting plaintiffs as also the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 had been one and thesame as against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

12. In the given status of parties and the subject matter of the suit,when the plaintiffs entered into an arrangement with defendant Nos. 1and 2 and sought permission to withdraw under Order XXIII Rule 1CPC, the right of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 to continue with the litigation ontheir claim against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 immediately sprang up andthey were, obviously, entitled to seek transposition as plaintiffs underOrder XXIII Rule 1-A CPC.

13. It is also noteworthy that even if some question is sought to beraised as regards the rights of the subsequent purchasers (defendantNos. 4 to 6), the right of the defendant No. 3 (earlier the plaintiff No. 5)to prosecute the suit as a plaintiff remains rather indisputable in view ofhis status as one of the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. Theright of the said defendant No. 3 (earlier the plaintiff No. 5) to challengethe sale deed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 did not getannulled only by his earlier transposition as the defendant; and he cannotbe considered bound by the arrangement between the existing plaintiffsand the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.In the given set of circumstances, theTrial Court had been justified in allowing the prayer for transposition andthe High Court has rightly declined to interfere.

14. For what has been discussed hereinabove, this appeal failsand is, therefore, dismissed.

Divya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H