ALIYAMMA Vs. KUNJAMMA JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short legal question that emerges for consideration in this original petition is whether an original defendant in the suit who is later transposed as plaintiff can seek leave to amend the pleadings of the original plaintiff.

(2.) The original plaintiffs in the suit sued for cancellation of a settlement deed executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in favour of seventh defendant and for partition and separate possession of their shares. The suit property originally belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and after his demise, it devolved on them in equal shares. The original plaintiffs are not parties to the settlement deed. The seventh defendant is the son of the sixth defendant. The original plaintiffs contended in the suit that the settlement deed is not binding on them, since they are not parties to the deed and further, the deed is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation practised on plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 to 5. The main contestants in the suit are defendant Nos. 1, 6 and 7, who sought to sustain the execution of the deed.

(3.) During the course of the suit proceedings, defendant Nos. 2 to 5, who contended that the settlement deed was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, sought them to be transposed as additional plaintiffs in the suit. The court below after finding that there is unity of interests between plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and the contentions are identical, allowed the applicants to be transposed as additional plaintiffs 4 to 7.