MANIKKAN AND ORS. Vs. GOVINDARAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of two separate contracts. The Trial Court, after an elaborate trial and on hearing both sides - in fact, after reserving the case for judgment - pronounced an order, disposing of the case on an issue relating to misjoinder of parties and causes of action and directed the plaintiffs to opt as to whom among them intend to prosecute the suit and against which of the defendants. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) Case of the plaintiffs, in short, is that the first defendant agreed to assign plaint A schedule property to the first plaintiff. He executed an agreement setting out the terms and conditions for the sale. Likewise, the second defendant executed another agreement with the second plaintiff agreeing to sell plaint B schedule property. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. The properties in plaint A and B schedules were their co - ownership properties earlier. Later, they partitioned the properties. The first defendant got A schedule and the second defendant obtained B schedule properties. Petitioners contended that both of them agreed to sell the lands on the same day and on the same terms and conditions. Subsequent to the execution of agreements to assign, they sold the properties to defendants 3 to 5. Defendants 6 to 8 are the legal heirs of since deceased first defendant. These two plaintiffs filed a unified suit for specific performance of the said contracts against defendants 1 and 2 and other defendants. In reality, the first plaintiff claims a relief of specific performance of contract against the first defendant only. Similarly, the claim of the second plaintiff for the said relief is only against the second defendant.

(3.) In this factual setting, the Court below raised following issue: