JANADAS Vs. VEDANAYAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been posted before us on the basis of a reference order passed on 17th May, 2004. The Writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Court below, which is produced as Ext. P3 is the order passed in two IAs, viz., IA No. 2583 and 3184 of 2003. While IA No. 3184 of 2003 was filed by the first plaintiff, IA No. 2583 of 2003 was filed by the second plaintiff.

(2.) The suit was filed for partition. There are seven plaintiffs in the suit. According to the first plaintiff, he is entitled to get 1/4 share and the other plaintiffs together are entitled to 1/4 share. Defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to get 1/2 share. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have filed the applications contending that it is not possible for them to continue as plaintiffs because of a dispute which has arisen among the plaintiffs. They want to get their shares separately and hence, they applied for transposing them as defendants. The Court below has considered this matter. According to the Court below, for getting their own shares, it is not necessary to transpose the plaintiffs as defendants. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 engaged different counsel. Hence, even without transposing, a decree can be passed.

(3.) When the matter came before the learned Single Judge, it was argued that the plaintiffs cannot get an order to transpose them as defendants. The decision in Narayanan v. Manjadimoodu Coir Cooperative Society, 1985 KLT 893 was cited. It was argued that a coplaintiff cannot be allowed to transpose him as a defendant, since there is no provision enabling such transposition. Learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in Saila Bala v. Nirmala Sundari, AIR 1958 SC 394 , and Madanappa v. Chandramma, AIR 1965 SC 1812 , and argued that the principles laid down in Narayanan's case requires reconsideration. It is on this basis that the reference has come before us.